Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-rgmxm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-01-01T23:42:08.893Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Anti-Pied-Piping

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Kenyon Branan  and
Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine
Kenyon Branan*
Affiliation:
Georg-August-Universität Göttingen
Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine*
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki and National University of Singapore
*
Branan, Seminar für Englische Philologie, Abt. für Neuere Englische Sprache, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Käte-Hamburger-Weg 3, 37073 Göttingen, Germany, [kgbranan@alum.mit.edu]
Erlewine, Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies, University of Helsinki, PO Box 4 (Fabianinkatu 24 A), 00014 Helsinki, Finland, [mitcho@alum.mit.edu]
Get access

Abstract

Anti-pied-piping is a widespread but understudied phenomenon where a language targets a proper subpart of the logical focus for focus morphosyntax: for example, focus particle placement or focus movement. We show that anti-pied-piping is attested in over sixty languages from over forty distinct language groups. We present a theory of focus particle syntax/semantics that involves severing the pronounced position of a focus particle and the logical position of its corresponding semantic contribution, which successfully accounts for both anti-pied-piping and pied-piping behavior. Constraints on attested anti-pied-piping behavior and its interaction with movement show that particle placement takes place at particular, punctuated points in the derivation, in a cyclic model of syntactic structure building. We also discuss the relation of particle placement to other processes such as linearization and stress assignment.

Keywords

focus particlesfocus movementfocus associationanti-pied-pipingpied-pipingparticle placementcyclic Spell-outstress assignment

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 99 , Issue 3 , September 2023 , pp. 603 - 653
Copyright
Copyright © 2023 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abels, Klaus, and Muriungi, Peter. 2006. The focus particle in Kîîtharaka. ZAS Papers in Linguistics (Papers on information structure in African languages) 46. 1–20. DOI: 10.21248/zaspil.46.2006.333.Google Scholar
Abney, Steven. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/14638.Google Scholar
Aboh, Enoch O. 2006. When verbal predicates go fronting. ZAS Papers in Linguistics (Papers on information structure in African languages) 46. 21–48. DOI: 10.21248/zaspil.46.2006.334.Google Scholar
Adger, David. 2007. Stress and phasal syntax. Linguistic Analysis 33. 238–66. Online: https://www.linguisticanalysis.com/volume-33-issue-3-4/.Google Scholar
Ameka, Felix K. 2010. Information packaging constructions in Kwa: Micro-variation and typology. Topics in Kwa syntax, ed. by Aboh, Enoch O. and Essegbey, James, 141–76. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-90-481-3189-1_7.Google Scholar
Aoyagi, Hiroshi. 1998. On the nature of particles in Japanese and its theoretical implications. Los Angeles: University of Southern California dissertation.Google Scholar
Aoyagi, Hiroshi. 1999. On association of quantifier-like particles with focus in Japanese. Linguistics: In search of the human mind—a festschrift for Kazuko Inoue, ed. by Muraki, Masatake and Iwamoto, Enoch, 24–56. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Aoyagi, Hiroshi. 2006. Nihongo no joshi to kinōhanchū [Particles and functional categories in Japanese]. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
Arregi, Karlos. 2016. Focus projection theories. In Féry & Ishihara, 185–202. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642670.013.005.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642670.013.005.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642670.013.005.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642670.013.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balogh, Kata, and Kazemian, Reza. 2021. The additive particle ham in Modern Persian. Paper presented at the 16th International Conference on Role and Reference Grammar.Google Scholar
Barbiers, Sjef. 2010. Focus particle doubling. Structure preserved: Studies in syntax for Jan Koster, ed. by Zwart, Jan-Wouter and de Vries, Mark, 21–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.164.03barCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbiers, Sjef. 2014. Syntactic doubling and deletion as a source of variation. Linguistic variation in the minimalist framework, ed. by Picallo, M. Carme, 197–223. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198702894.003.0010.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198702894.003.0010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bassi, Itai, Hirsch, Aron; and Trinh, Tue. 2022. Pre-DP only is a propositional operator at LF: A new argument from ellipsis. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 32. 814–30. DOI: 10.3765/salt.v1i0.5358.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef. 1996. Directionality and logical form: On the scope of focusing particles and wh-in-situ. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-017-1272-9.10.1007/978-94-017-1272-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Josef. 2018. From the adjunction theory to the head theory of particles. Konstanz: University of Konstanz, ms. Online: https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004070/.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef. 2020. Why doubling discourse particles? Linguistic variation: Structure and interpretation, ed. by Franco, Ludovico and Lorusso, Paolo, 47–72. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9781501505201-005.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef, and Obenauer, Hans-Georg. 2011. Discourse particles, clause structure, and question types. The Linguistic Review 28. 449–91. DOI: 10.1515/tlir.2011.013.10.1515/tlir.2011.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bearth, Thomas. 1999. The inferential gap condition. Pragmatics 9. 249–80. DOI: 10.1075/prag.9.2.03bea.Google Scholar
Beltrama, Andrea, and Trotzke, Andreas. 2019. Conveying emphasis for intensity: Lexical and syntactic strategies. Language and Linguistics Compass 13(7):e12343. DOI: 10.1111/lnc3.12343.10.1111/lnc3.12343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina, Bocci, Giuliano; and Cruschina, Silvio. 2016. Focus fronting, unexpectedness, and evaluative implicatures. Semantics & Pragmatics 9:3. DOI: 10.3765/sp.9.3.Google Scholar
Bossi, Madeline, and Diercks, Michael. 2019. V1 in Kipsigis: Head movement and discourse-based scrambling. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 4(1):65. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.246.Google Scholar
Branan, Kenyon. 2018. Relationship preservation. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/120671.Google Scholar
Branan, Kenyon. 2021. Case, categories, and Coahuilteco. Berlin: Leibniz-Zentrum Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS), ms.Google Scholar
Branan, Kenyon, and Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. 2021. Is there focus-marking in the syntax? Targeted collaborative debate given at GLOW 44. Online: https://mitcho.com/research/talk-focus-debate.html.Google Scholar
Branan, Kenyon, and Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. 2022. Ā-probing for the closest DP. Linguistic Inquiry. DOI: 10.1162/ling_a_00459.10.1162/ling_a_00459.10.1162/ling_a_00459.10.1162/ling_a_00459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brasoveanu, Adrian, and Szabolcsi, Anna. 2013. Presuppositional too, postsuppositional too. The dynamic, inquisitive, and visionary life of φ, ?φ, and ◊φ: A festschrift for Jeroen Groenendijk, Martin Stokhof, and Frank Veltman, ed. by Aloni, Maria, Franke, Michael, and Roelofsen, Floris, 55–64. Online: https://festschriften.illc.uva.nl/Festschrift-JMF/papers/05_BrasoveanuSzabolsci.pdf.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan W. 1971. Sentence stress and syntactic transformations. Language 47. 257–81. DOI: 10.2307/412081.10.2307/412081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan W. 1972. Stress and syntax: A reply. Language 48. 326–42. DOI: 10.2307/412138.10.2307/412138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno Holle, Juan José. 2016. Information structure in Isthmus Zapotec. Chicago: University of Chicago dissertation.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 1997. The meaning of topic and focus: The 59th Street Bridge accent. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2015. Unalternative semantics. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 25. 550–75. DOI: 10.3765/salt.v25i0.3634.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel, and Hartmann, Katharina. 2001. The syntax and semantics of focus-sensitive particles in German. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19. 229–81. DOI: 10.1023/A:1010653115493.10.1023/A:1010653115493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cable, Seth. 2007. The grammar of Q: Q-particles and the nature of wh-fronting, as revealed by the wh-questions of Tlingit. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/41701.Google Scholar
Cable, Seth. 2010a. Against the existence of pied-piping: Evidence from Tlingit. Linguistic Inquiry 41. 563–94. DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00013.10.1162/LING_a_00013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cable, Seth. 2010b. The grammar of Q: Q-particles, wh-movement, and pied-piping. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195392265.001.0001.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195392265.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cable, Seth. 2012. Pied-piping: Introducing two recent approaches. Language and Linguistics Compass 6. 816–32. DOI: 10.1111/lnc3.12001.10.1111/lnc3.12001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, Greg N. 1983. Marking constituents. Linguistic categories: Auxiliaries and related puzzles, vol. 1, ed. by Rudin, Catherine, Henry, Frank, and Richards, Barry, 69–98. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-009-6989-6_4.10.1007/978-94-009-6989-6_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheung, Lawrence Yam-Leung. 2009. Dislocation focus construction in Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 18. 197–232. DOI: 10.1007/s10831-009-9046-z.10.1007/s10831-009-9046-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 2006. Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the ‘logicality’ of language. Linguistic Inquiry 37. 535–90. DOI: 10.1162/ling.2006.37.4.535.10.1162/ling.2006.37.4.535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 2013. Logic in grammar: Polarity, free choice, and intervention. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199697977.001.0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choe, Jae-Woong. 1996. ‘-Man‘-eu jakyongyeok jungeuseong [Scopal ambiguity of Korean particle -man]. Korean Journal of Linguistics 21. 673–92.Google Scholar
Choe, Jae-Woong. 2002. Extended focus: Korean delimiter man. Language Research 38. 1131–49.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Martin, Roger, Michaels, David, and Uriagereka, Juan, 89–156. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. by Kenstowicz, Michael, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Citko, Barbara. 2008. Missing labels. Lingua 118. 907–44. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.01.001.10.1016/j.lingua.2008.01.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colley, Justin, and Privoznov, Dmitry. 2020. On the topic of subjects: Composite probes in Khanty. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 50. 111–24.Google Scholar
Collins, Chris. 1994. The factive construction in Kwa. Travaux de recherche sur le creole haitien, ed. by Lefebvre, Claire, 31–65. Montreal: Université du Québec à Montréal.Google Scholar
Constant, Noah, and Gu, Chloe Chenjie. 2010. Mandarin 'even,' 'all' and the trigger of focus movement. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics (Proceedings of the 33rd annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium) 16(1). 21–30. Online: https://repository.upenn.edu/handle/20.500.14332/44771.Google Scholar
Cruschina, Silvio. 2012. Discourse-related features and functional projections. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199759613.001.0001.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199759613.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruschina, Silvio. 2021. The greater the contrast, the greater the potential: On the effects of focus in syntax. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 6(1):3. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.1100.Google Scholar
Dash, Bhamati, and Datta, Madhumanti. 2020. Focus anti-pied-piping in Bangla and Hindi-Urdu. Handout of paper given at Formal Approaches to South Asian Languages (FASAL) 10.Google Scholar
Dash, Bhamati, and Datta, Madhumanti. 2022. Focus anti-pied-piping in Bangla and Hindi-Urdu. Proceedings of Formal Approaches to South Asian Languages (FASAL) 10. Online: https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/jsal/index.php/fasal/article/view/259.Google Scholar
Davis, Christopher. 2013. Surface position and focus domain of the Ryukyuan focus particle du: Evidence from Miyara Yaeyaman. International Journal of Okinawan Studies 4. 29–49.Google Scholar
Davis, Christopher. 2014. The role of focus particles in wh-interrogatives: Evidence from a Southern Ryukyuan language. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 31. 124–33. Online: http://www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/31/abstract3014.html.Google Scholar
Dobashi, Yoshihito. 2003. Phonological phrasing and syntactic derivation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University dissertation.Google Scholar
Dobashi, Yoshihito. 2010. Computational efficiency in the syntax-phonology interface. The Linguistic Review 27. 241–60. DOI: 10.1515/tlir.2010.009.10.1515/tlir.2010.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1989. Large linguistic areas and language sampling. Studies in Language 13. 257–92. DOI: 10.1075/sl.13.2.03dry.10.1075/sl.13.2.03dryCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2013. Genealogical language list. The world atlas of linguistic structures online, ed. by Dryer, Matthew S. and Haspelmath, Martin. Anthropology, Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary. Online: https://wals.info/languoid/genealogy.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74. 245–73. DOI: 10.2307/417867.10.1353/lan.1998.0211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 2002. The syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511755088.10.1017/CBO9780511755088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eaton, Helen. 2002. The grammar of focus in Sandawe. Reading: University of Reading dissertation.Google Scholar
Eaton, Helen. 2010a. Information structure marking in Sandawe texts. In Fiedler & Schwarz 2010, 1–34.Google Scholar
Eaton, Helen. 2010b. A Sandawe grammar. Dallas: SIL International. Online: https://www.sil.org/resources/archives/9273.Google Scholar
Embick, David, and Noyer, Rolf. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32. 555–95. DOI: 10.1162/002438901753373005.10.1162/002438901753373005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. 2014. Movement out of focus. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/93027.Google Scholar
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. 2017. Vietnamese focus particles and derivation by phase. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 26. 325–49. DOI: 10.1007/s10831-017-9156-y.10.1007/s10831-017-9156-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. 2018. Extraction and licensing in Toba Batak. Language 94. 662–97. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2018.0039.10.1353/lan.2018.0039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka, and Kotek, Hadas. 2018. Focus association by movement: Evidence from Tanglewood. Linguistic Inquiry 49. 441–63. DOI: 10.1162/ling_a_00263.10.1162/ling_a_00263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka, and New, Keely. 2021. A variably exhaustive and scalar focus particle and pragmatic focus concord in Burmese. Semantics & Pragmatics 14:7. DOI: 10.3765/sp.14.7.10.3765/sp.14.7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert. 2004. Cyclic phonology–syntax-interaction: Movement to first position in German. Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 1. 1–42. Online: http://www.sfb632.uni-potsdam.de/downloads/publications/isis01_fanselow.pdf.Google Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert. 2006. The restricted access of information structure to syntax: A minority report. Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 6. 205–20. Online: http://www.sfb632.uni-potsdam.de/downloads/publications/A1_Fanselow.pdf.Google Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert, and Lenertová, Denisa, 2011. Left peripheral focus: Mismatches between syntax and information structure. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29. 169–209. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-010-9109-x.10.1007/s11049-010-9109-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Féry, Caroline. 2013. Focus as prosodic alignment. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 31. 683–734. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-013-9195-7.10.1007/s11049-013-9195-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Féry, Caroline, and Drenhaus, Heiner. 2008. Single prosodic phrase sentences. Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 10. 1–44. Online: http://pub.sfb632.uni-potsdam.de/downloads/publications/isis10_fery.pdf.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline, and Ishihara, Shinichiro (eds.) 2016. The Oxford handbook of information structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642670.001.0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiedler, Ines, and Schwarz, Anne. 2005. Out-of-focus encoding in Gur and Kwa. Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 3. 111–42. Online: https://publishup.uni-potsdam.de/opus4-ubp/rewrite/index/id/type/opus3-id/value/873.Google Scholar
Fiedler, Ines, and Schwarz, Anne (eds.) 2010. The expression of information structure: A documentation of its diversity across Africa. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fominyam, Henry, and Šimík, Radek. 2017. The morphosyntax of exhaustive focus: A view from Awing (Grassfields Bantu). Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 35. 1027–77. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-017-9363-2.10.1007/s11049-017-9363-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forker, Diana. 2016. Floating agreement and information structure: The case of Sanzhi Dargwa. Studies in Language 40. 1–25. DOI: 10.1075/sl.40.1.01for.10.1075/sl.40.1.01forCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forker, Diana, and Belyaev, Oleg. 2016. Word order and focus particles in Nakh-Daghestanian languages. Information structuring of spoken language from a cross-linguistic perspective, ed. by Fernandez-Vest, Jocelyne and Van Valin, Robert D. Jr., 239–61. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9783110368758-012.Google Scholar
Fox, Danny, and Pesetsky, David. 2005. Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure. Theoretical Linguistics 31. 1–45. DOI: 10.1515/thli.2005.31.1-2.1.10.1515/thli.2005.31.1-2.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frey, Werner. 2010. Ā-movement and conventional implicatures: About the grammatical encoding of emphasis in German. Lingua 120. 1416–35. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.09.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagstrom, Paul. 1998. Decomposing questions. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/9649.Google Scholar
Haiman, John. 1988. Incorporation, parallelism, and focus. Studies in syntactic typology, ed. by Hammond, Michael, Moravcsik, Edith A., and Wirth, Jessica, 303–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Halpern, Aaron L. 1995. On the placement and morphology of clitics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Harley, Matthew W. 2005. A descriptive grammar of Tuwuli, a Kwa language of Ghana. London: SOAS University of London dissertation.Google Scholar
Hartmann, Jutta M. 2016. The syntax and focus structure of specificational copular clauses and clefts. Tübingen: Universität Tübingen Habilitationsschrift.Google Scholar
Hartmann, Katharina, Jacob, Peggy; and Zimmermann, Malte. 2008. Focus asymmetries in Bura. Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 10. 45–92. Online: https://www.ling.uni-potsdam.de/~zimmermann/papers/MZ2008-BuraFocus.pdf.Google Scholar
Hartmann, Katharina, and Zimmermann, Malte. 2007a. Focus strategies in Chadic: The case of Tangale revisited. Studia Linguistica 61. 95–129. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9582.2007.00132.x.10.1111/j.1467-9582.2007.00132.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, Katharina, and Zimmermann, Malte. 2007b. In place—out of place? Focus in Hausa. In Schwabe & Winkler, 365–405.Google Scholar
Heck, Fabian. 2008. On pied-piping: Wh-movement and beyond. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110211467.10.1515/9783110211467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedding, Andrew. 2019. New information and the grammar of focus: Evidence from San Martín Peras Mixtec. Santa Cruz: University of California, Santa Cruz, ms.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1998. Anaphora and semantic interpretation: A reinterpretation of Reinhart's approach. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (The interpretive tract) 25. 205–46.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene, and Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Herburger, Elena. 2000. What counts: Focus and quantification. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/7201.001.0001.10.7551/mitpress/7201.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermon, Gabriella. 1984. Syntactic modularity. Dordrecht: Foris.10.1515/9783110849141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrmann, Annika. 2013. Modal and focus particles in sign languages: A cross-linguistic study. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9781614511816.10.1515/9781614511816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, Aron. 2017. An inflexible semantics for cross-categorial operators. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/113782.Google Scholar
Hole, Daniel. 2013. Focus particles and related entities in Vietnamese. Linguistics of Vietnamese: An international survey, ed. by Hole, Daniel and Löbel, Elisabeth, 265–303. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9783110289411.265.10.1515/9783110289411.265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hole, Daniel. 2017. A crosslinguistic syntax of scalar and non-scalar focus particle sentences: The view from Vietnamese and Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 26. 389–409. DOI: 10.1007/s10831-017-9160-2.10.1007/s10831-017-9160-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horvath, Julia. 1981. Aspects of Hungarian syntax and the theory of grammar. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles dissertation.Google Scholar
Horvath, Julia. 2000. Interfaces vs. the computational system in the syntax of focus. Interface strategies, ed. by Bennis, Hans, Everaert, Martin, and Reuland, Eric, 183–206. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Horvath, Julia. 2007. Separating ‘focus movement’ from focus. Clausal and phrasal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation, ed. by Karimi, Simin, Samiian, Vida, and Wilkins, Wendy K., 108–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Horvath, Julia. 2013. Focus, exhaustivity and the syntax of wh-interrogatives: The case of Hungarian. Approaches to Hungarian, vol. 13: Papers from the 2011 Lund conference, ed. by Brandtler, Johan, Molnár, Valéria, and Platzack, Christer, 97–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/atoh.13.06horCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoshi, Koji. 2008. Remarks on focus feature organization in narrow syntax with special reference to the additive mo ‘also’. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 24. 1–44. DOI: 10.1515/jjl-2008-0102.10.1515/jjl-2008-0102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, Larry M., and Polinsky, Maria. 2010. Focus in Aghem. Information structure: Theoretical, typological, and experimental perspectives, ed. by Zimmermann, Malte and Féry, Caroline, 206–33. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199570959.003.0009.Google Scholar
Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2000. Scrambling and its interaction with stress and focus. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (Proceedings of the 12th Student Conference on Linguistics (SCIL 12)) 38. 95–110.Google Scholar
Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2001. Stress, focus, and scrambling in Japanese. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (A few from Building E39: Papers in syntax, semantics and their interface) 39. 142–75.Google Scholar
Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2004. Prosody by phase: Evidence from focus intonation–wh-scope correspondence in Japanese. Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 1. 77–119. Online: http://www.sfb632.uni-potsdam.de/downloads/publications/A1_Ishihara_2004.pdf.Google Scholar
Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2007. Major phrase, focus intonation, Multiple Spell-Out. The Linguistic Review 24. 137–67. DOI: 10.1515/TLR.2007.006.10.1515/TLR.2007.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim. 1986. The syntax of focus and adverbials in German. Topic, focus, and configurationality, ed. by Abraham, Werner and de Meij, Sjaak, 103–28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jouitteau, Mélanie. 2007. The Brythonic reconciliation. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 7. 163–200. DOI: 10.1075/livy.7.06jou.10.1075/livy.7.06jouCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan. 2009. The syntax of sentential stress. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199219230.001.0001.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199219230.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan, and Megerdoomian, Karine. 2017. On the positional distribution of an Armenian auxiliary: Second-position clisis, focus, and phases. Syntax 20. 77–97. DOI: 10.1111/synt.12129.10.1111/synt.12129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamali, Beste. 2011. Topics at the PF interface of Turkish. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University dissertation.Google Scholar
Kamali, Beste, and Karvovskaya, Lena. 2013. ‘Also’ in Turkish and Ishkashimi. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 8. 181–86.Google Scholar
Karvovskaya, Lena. 2013. ‘Also’ in Ishkashimi: Additive particle and sentence connector. Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 17. 75–97. Online: https://publishup.uni-potsdam.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/6382.Google Scholar
Kaufman, Daniel. 2005. Aspects of pragmatic focus in Tagalog. The many faces of Austronesian voice systems: Some new empirical studies (Pacific linguistics 571), ed. by Arka, I Wayan and Ross, Malcolm, 175–96. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Kaufman, Daniel. 2010. The morphosyntax of Tagalog clitics: A typologically driven approach. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University dissertation. Online: https://hdl.handle.net/1813/17165.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1998. Overt vs. covert movements. Syntax 1. 128–91. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9612.00006.10.1111/1467-9612.00006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenesei, István. 1998a. Adjuncts and arguments in VP-focus in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 45. 61–88. DOI: 10.1023/A:1009604924685.10.1023/A:1009604924685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenesei, István. 1998b. On the syntactic options of focus. Szegod: University of Szegod, ms.Google Scholar
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa. 1986. Subjects in Japanese and English. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar
Kobuchi-Phillips, Mana. 2009. Japanese mo: Universal, additive, and NPI. Journal of Cognitive Science 10. 173–94. DOI: 10.17791/jcs.2009.10.2.173.Google Scholar
Koch, Karsten, and Zimmermann, Malte. 2010. Focus-sensitive operators in Nłeʔkepmxcin (Thompson River Salish). Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 14. 237–55. Online: https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/470.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda, and Szabolcsi, Anna. 2000. Verbal complexes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/7090.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1997. Turkish. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kotani, Sachie. 2008. A mismatch between position and interpretation: Focus association with even in Japanese. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 28. 175–94. Online: https://twpl.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/twpl/article/view/6143.Google Scholar
Kotani, Sachie. 2009. Focus particles and their effects in the Japanese language. Newark: University of Delaware dissertation.Google Scholar
Kotek, Hadas. 2014. Wh-fronting in a two-probe system. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 32. 1105–43. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-014-9238-8.10.1007/s11049-014-9238-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kotek, Hadas, Dockum, Rikker, Babinski, Sarah; and Geissler, Christopher. 2021. Gender bias and stereotypes in linguistic example sentences. Language 97. 653–77. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2021.0060.10.1353/lan.2021.0060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kotek, Hadas, and Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. 2016. Covert pied-piping in English multiple wh-questions. Linguistic Inquiry 47. 669–93. DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00226.10.1162/LING_a_00226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika, and Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2007. Phase theory and prosodic spellout: The case of verbs. The Linguistic Review 24. 93–135. DOI: 10.1515/TLR.2007.005.10.1515/TLR.2007.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1991. A compositional semantics for multiple focus constructions. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 1. 127–58. DOI: 10.3765/salt.v1i0.2492.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2008. Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55. 243–76. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26190905.10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3-4.2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroeger, Paul R. 1998. Tagalog clitics and clause structure. Pagtanaw: Essays on language in honor of Teodoro A. Llamzon, ed. by Bautista, Maria Lourdes S. and Llamzon, Teodoro A., 53–72. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1965. Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/13006.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1988. Whether we agree or not: A comparative syntax of English and Japanese. Linguisticæ Investigations 12. 1–47. DOI: 10.1075/li.12.1.02kur.10.1075/li.12.1.02kurCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kwon, Iksoo. 2013. One -mi: An evidential, epistemic modal, and focus marker in Imbabura Quechua. Structure and contact in languages of the Americas, ed. by Sylak-Glassman, John and Spence, Justin, 69–86. Berkeley: Survey of California and Other Indian Languages.Google Scholar
Lahiri, Utpal. 1998. Focus and negative polarity in Hindi. Natural Language Semantics 6. 57–123. DOI: 10.1023/A:1008211808250.10.1023/A:1008211808250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511620607.10.1017/CBO9780511620607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lebeaux, David. 1988. Language acquisition and the form of the grammar. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar
Lebeaux, David. 1991. Relative clauses, licensing, and the nature of the derivation. Perspectives on phrase structure: Heads and licensing, ed. by Rothstein, Susan D., 175–94. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Leben, William R., Inkelas, Sharon; and Cobler, Mark. 1989. Phrases and phrase tones in Hausa. Current approaches to African linguistics 5, ed. by Newman, Paul and Botne, Robert D., 45–61. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI: 10.1515/9783112420089-005.Google Scholar
Lecarme, Jacqueline. 1999. Focus in Somali. The grammar of focus, ed. by Rebuschi, Georges and Tuller, Laurice, 275–310. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.24.10lecCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Felicia. 1997. Focus and judgment type in San Lucas Quiaviní Zapotec. Berkeley Linguistics Society 23. 234–44. DOI: 10.3765/bls.v23i1.1268.Google Scholar
Lee, Youngjoo. 2004. The syntax and semantics of focus particles. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/28835.Google Scholar
Lee, Youngjoo. 2005. Exhaustivity as agreement: The case of Korean man ‘only’. Natural Language Semantics 13. 169–200. DOI: 10.1007/s11050-004-6410-4.10.1007/s11050-004-6410-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leffel, Timothy. 2011. Focus constructions in Masalit. New York: New York University, ms.Google Scholar
Legate, Julie Anne. 2003. Some interface properties of the phase. Linguistic Inquiry 34. 506–15. DOI: 10.1162/ling.2003.34.3.506.10.1162/ling.2003.34.3.506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legate, Julie Anne. 2008. Warlpiri and the theory of second position clitics. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26. 3–60. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-007-9030-0.10.1007/s11049-007-9030-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenertová, Denisa, and Junghanns, Uwe. 2007. Wide focus interpretation with fronted focus exponents in Czech. In Schwabe & Winkler, 347–63.Google Scholar
López, Luis. 2009. A derivational syntax for information structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199557400.001.0001.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199557400.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mac Cana, Proinsias. 1973. On Celtic word order and the Welsh ‘abnormal’ sentence. Ériu 24. 90–120. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30007352.Google Scholar
Manfredi, Victor. 2004. The prosodic infrastructure of focus in Benue-Kwa. Boston: Boston University, handout. Online: https://people.bu.edu/manfredi/prosodicInfrastructure.pdf.Google Scholar
Matić, Dejan. 2014. Questions and syntactic islands in Tundra Yukaghir. Information structure and reference tracking in complex sentences, ed. by van Gijn, Rik, Hammond, Jeremy, Matić, Dejan, van Putten, Saskia, and Galucio, Ana Vilacy, 127–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.105.01matCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matić, Dejan, and Odé, Cecilia, 2015. On prosodic signalling of focus in Tundra Yukaghir. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana 11. 627–44. Online: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/on-prosodic-signalling-of-focus-in-tundra-yukaghir.Google Scholar
Matić, Dejan, and Wedgwood, Daniel. 2013. The meanings of focus: The significance of an interpretation-based category in cross-linguistic analysis. Journal of Linguistics 49. 127–63. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226712000345.10.1017/S0022226712000345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
May, Robert Carlen. 1977. The grammar of quantification. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/16287.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1970. English as a VSO language. Language 46. 286–99. DOI: 10.2307/412279.10.2307/412279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, Jim. 1997. Subjecthood and subject positions. Elements of grammar, ed. by Haegeman, Liliane, 197–235. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_5.10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1992. Is basic word order universal? Pragmatics and word order flexibility, ed. by Payne, Doris L., 15–61. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.22.02mitCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitrović, Moreno, and Sauerland, Uli. 2014. Decomposing coordination. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 44(2). 39–52.Google Scholar
Mushin, Ilana. 2006. Motivations for second position: Evidence from North-Central Australia. Linguistic Typology 10. 287–326. DOI: 10.1515/LINGTY.2006.010.10.1515/LINGTY.2006.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagano, Masaru. 1951. Gendaigo no joshi, jodoushi: Youhou to jitsurei [Particles and auxiliary verbs in Modern Japanese: Uses and examples]. Tokyo: National Language Research Institute.Google Scholar
Nagasaki, Iku. 2018. The focus construction in Early Modern Kolyma Yukaghir. Gengo Kenkyu 154. 123–52. DOI: 10.11435/gengo.154.0_123.Google Scholar
Neeleman, Ad, and Szendrői, Kriszta. 2004. Superman sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 35. 149–59. DOI: 10.1162/ling.2004.35.1.149.10.1162/ling.2004.35.1.149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, Paul. 2000. The Hausa language: An encyclopedic reference grammar. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina. 2019. Focus as a morphosyntactic and morphosemantic feature. Morphological perspectives: Papers in honour of Greville G. Corbett, ed. by Baerman, Matthew, Bond, Oliver, and Hippisley, Andrew, 370–89. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctvggx4p0.19.Google Scholar
Numata, Yoshiko. 2009. Gendai Nihongo toritateshi no kenkyū [A study of focus particles in Modern Japanese]. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
Ohno, Kazutoshi. 2003. The interpretation of focalizers in Japanese and English. Tucson: University of Arizona dissertation.Google Scholar
Okell, John. 2002. Burmese by ear. London: SOAS Podcasts. Online: https://soundcloud.com/soas-university-of-london/sets/burmese-by-ear-by-john-okell.Google Scholar
Palancar, Enrique L. 2018. Subject and focus in clefts: The case of Tilapa Otomi. Information structure in lesser-described languages, ed. by Adamou, Evangelia, Haude, Katharina, and Vanhove, Martine, 245–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Perkins, Ellavina. 1978. Topics in Navajo grammar. Tucson: University of Arizona dissertation.Google Scholar
Quek, Yihui, and Hirsch, Aron. 2017. Severing focus form and meaning in Standard and Colloquial Singapore English. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 47(3). 15–25.Google Scholar
Rialland, Annie, and Robert, Stéphane. 2001. The intonational system of Wolof. Linguistics 39. 893–939. DOI: 10.1515/ling.2001.038.10.1515/ling.2001.038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 2018. Nuclear stress and the life cycle of operators. Order and structure in syntax: Word order and syntactic structure, ed. by Bailey, Laura R. and Sheehan, Michelle, 217–40. Berlin: Language Science. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1117716.Google Scholar
Robert, Stéphane. 1991. Approche énonciative du système verbal: Le cas du Wolof. Paris: CNRS Éditions.Google Scholar
Rochemont, Michael. 2013. Discourse new, F-marking, and normal stress. Lingua 136. 38–62. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2013.07.016.10.1016/j.lingua.2013.07.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1. 75–116. DOI: 10.1007/BF02342617.10.1007/BF02342617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 2016. Alternative semantics. In Féry & Ishihara, 19–40. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642670.013.19.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642670.013.19.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642670.013.19.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642670.013.19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/15166.Google Scholar
Safir, Ken. 2019. The A/A' distinction as an epiphenomenon. Linguistic Inquiry 50. 285–336. DOI: 10.1162/ling_a_00305.10.1162/ling_a_00305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1987. The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 25. 511–80. DOI: 10.1515/ling.1987.25.3.511.10.1515/ling.1987.25.3.511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, Yosuke. 2012a. Multiple Spell-Out and contraction at the syntax-phonology interface. Syntax 15. 287–314. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9612.2012.00168.x.10.1111/j.1467-9612.2012.00168.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, Yosuke. 2012b. Phonological interpretation by phase: Sentential stress, domain encapsulation, and edge sensitivity. Phases: Developing the framework, ed. by Gallego, Ángel, 283–307. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9783110264104.283.10.1515/9783110264104.283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwabe, Kerstin, and Winkler, Susanne (eds.) 2007. On information structure, meaning, and form: Generalizations across languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, Anne. 2007. The particles lé and lá in the grammar of Konkomba. Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 8. 115–39. Online: http://www.sfb632.uni-potsdam.de/downloads/publications/isis08_schwarz.pdf.Google Scholar
Schwarz, Anne. 2009. Tonal focus reflections in Buli and some Gur relatives. Lingua 119. 950–72. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2007.10.025.10.1016/j.lingua.2007.10.025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, Anne. 2010. Verb-and-predication focus markers in Gur. In Fiedler & Schwarz 2010, 287–314.Google Scholar
Schwarz, Florian. 2003. Focus marking in Kikuyu. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 30. 41–118. DOI: 10.21248/zaspil.30.2003.180.10.21248/zaspil.30.2003.180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, Florian. 2007. Ex-situ focus in Kikuyu. Focus strategies in African languages: The interaction of focus and grammar in Niger-Congo and Afro-Asiatic, ed. by Oladé, Enoch, Aboh, Katharina Hartmann, and Zimmermann, Malte, 139–59. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110199093.3.139.Google Scholar
Scott, Tessa. 2021. Formalizing two types of mixed A/Ā movement. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, ms. Online: https://lingbuzz.net/lingbuzz/005874.Google Scholar
Shimoji, Michinori. 2018. Information structure, focus, and focus-marking hierarchies in Ryukyuan languages. Gengo Kenkyu 154. 85–121. DOI: 10.11435/gengo.154.0_85.Google Scholar
Smeets, Liz, and Wagner, Michael. 2018. Reconstructing the syntax of focus operators. Semantics & Pragmatics 11:6. DOI: 10.3765/sp.11.6.10.3765/sp.11.6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stepanov, Arthur Vladimirovich. 2001. Cyclic domains in syntactic theory. Storrs: University of Connecticut dissertation. Online: https://opencommons.uconn.edu/dissertations/AAI3023466.Google Scholar
Sun, Yenan. 2020. Only-concord in Vietnamese: Support for a bipartite analysis and Undermerge. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 50(3). 183–92.Google Scholar
Sun, Yenan. 2021. A bipartite analysis of zhiyou ‘only’ in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 30. 319–55. DOI: 10.1007/s10831-021-09228-w.10.1007/s10831-021-09228-wCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balázs, Surányi. 2018. Focus in focus. Boundaries crossed, at the interfaces of morphosyntax, phonology, pragmatics and semantics, ed. by Bartos, Huba, Dikken, Marcel den, Bánréti, Zoltán, and Váradi, Tamás, 243–62. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-90710-9_16.Google Scholar
Svolacchia, Marco, Mereu, Lunella; and Puglielli, Annarita. 1995. Aspects of discourse configurationality in Somali. Discourse configurational languages, ed. by Kiss, Katalin É., 65–98. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195088335.003.0003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1981. The semantics of topic-focus articulation. Formal methods in the study of language, part 2, ed. by Groenendijk, Jeroen A. G., Janssen, Theo M. V., and Stokhof, Martin B. J., 513–40. Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1983. The possessor that ran away from home. The Linguistic Review 3. 89–102. DOI: 10.1515/tlir.1983.3.1.89.10.1515/tlir.1983.3.1.89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 2015. What do quantifier particles do? Linguistics and Philosophy 38. 159–204. DOI: 10.1007/s10988-015-9166-z.10.1007/s10988-015-9166-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szendrői, Kriszta. 2003. A stress-based approach to the syntax of Hungarian focus. The Linguistic Review 20. 37–78. DOI: 10.1515/tlir.2003.002.10.1515/tlir.2003.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taglicht, Josef. 1984. Message and emphasis: On focus and scope in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Tanaka, Hidekazu. 1999. LF wh-islands and the minimal scope principle. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 17. 371–402. DOI: 10.1023/A:1006192709855.10.1023/A:1006192709855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terrill, Angela. 2003. A grammar of Lavukaleve. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110923964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 1999. Multiple spell-out. Working minimalism, ed. by Epstein, Samuel David and Hornstein, Norbert, 251–82. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/7305.003.0012.Google Scholar
Valle, Daniel. 2014. Focus marking in Kakataibo (Panoan). Oklahoma Working Papers in Indigenous Languages 1. 55–78. Online: https://www.ou.edu/content/dam/cas/anthropology/docs/OWPIL/OWPIL_Vol.1_2014.pdf.Google Scholar
Vallejos Yopán, Rosa. 2009. The focus function(s) of =pura in Kokama-Kokamilla discourse. International Journal of American Linguistics 75. 399–432. DOI: 10.1086/605418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk, and Zwarts, Frans. 1997 [1974]. Left dislocation in Dutch and status of copying rules. Materials on left dislocation, ed. by Anagnostopoulou, Elena, van Riemsdijk, Henk, and Zwarts, Frans, 13–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
van Urk, Coppe. 2015. A uniform syntax for phrasal movement: A Dinka Bor case study. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/101595.Google Scholar
van Urk, Coppe, and Richards, Norvin. 2015. Two components of long-distance extraction: Successive cyclicity in Dinka. Linguistic Inquiry 46. 113–55. DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00177.10.1162/LING_a_00177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Fintel, Kai. 1997. Bare plurals, bare conditionals, and only. Journal of Semantics 14. 1–56. DOI: 10.1093/jos/14.1.1.10.1093/jos/14.1.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vydrina, Alexandra. 2020. Topicality in sentence focus utterances. Studies in Language 44. 501–47. DOI: 10.1075/sl.18069.vyd.10.1075/sl.18069.vydCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vydrina, Alexandra. 2023. Morphological focus and its agreement features in Kakabe. Mandenkan 69. 30–86. DOI: 10.4000/mandenkan.3006.10.4000/mandenkan.3006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, Michael. 2006. Association by movement: Evidence from NPI-licensing. Natural Language Semantics 14. 297–324. DOI: 10.1007/s11050-007-9005-z.10.1007/s11050-007-9005-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watanabe, Akira. 2006. The pied-piper feature. Wh-movement: Moving on, ed. by Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen and Corver, Norbert, 47–70. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/7197.003.0007.Google Scholar
Wierzba, Marta, and Fanselow, Gisbert. 2020. Factors influencing the acceptability of object fronting in German. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 23. 77–124. DOI: 10.1007/s10828-020-09113-1.10.1007/s10828-020-09113-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfe, Andrew, and Adam, Tajeldin Abdalla. 2018. Optional ergativity and information structure in Beria. African linguistics on the prairie: Selected papers from the 45th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, ed. by Kandybowicz, Jason, Major, Travis, Torrence, Harold, and Duncan, Philip T., 341–58. Berlin: Language Science. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1251748.Google Scholar
Wu, Danfeng. 2022. Syntax of either in either … or... sentences. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 40. 933–77. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-021-09523-0.10.1007/s11049-021-09523-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2018. The cost of raising quantifiers. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3(1):19. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.329.Google Scholar
Yoshimura, Keiko. 2007. Focus and polarity: Even and only in Japanese. Chicago: University of Chicago dissertation.Google Scholar
András, Zsámboki. 1995. Contrastive co-ordinations with focussed clauses. Working Papers in the Theory of Grammar 2. Online: http://real-eod.mtak.hu/id/eprint/8184.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1977. On clitics. Columbus: The Ohio State University, ms. [Reproduced by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.].Google Scholar
Zyman, Erik. 2021. Phase-constrained obligatory late adjunction. Syntax 25. 84–121. DOI: 10.1111/synt.12226.10.1111/synt.12226CrossRefGoogle Scholar