Show Summary Details

Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 28 January 2020

(p. 835) References

(p. 835) References

Aarons, Debra (1994). Aspects of the Syntax of American Sign Language. PhD Dissertation, Boston University.Find this resource:

Abbott, Barbara (2000). ‘Presuppositions as Non-assertions’, Journal of Pragmatics 32: 1419–1437.Find this resource:

Abbott, Barbara (2005). ‘Where Have Some of the Presuppositions Gone?’, in B. J. Birner and G. L. Ward (eds), Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning: Neo-Gricean studies in pragmatics and semantics in honor of Laurence R. Horn, volume 80, 1–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Abeillé, Anne, Danièle, Godard, and Frédéric, Sabio (2008). ‘Two Types of Preposed NP in French’, in 15th HPSG Conference, 306–324.Find this resource:

Abels, Klaus (2001). ‘The Predicate Cleft Construction in Russian’, in S. Franks, T. Holloway King, and M. Yadroff (eds), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, 1–18.Find this resource:

Abels, Klaus (2004). ‘Right Node Raising: Ellipsis or Across the Board Movement’, in K. Moulton and M. Wolf (eds), Proceedings of NELS 34. Amherst, MA: GLSA, 45–59.Find this resource:

Aboh, Enoch O. (2004a). The Morphosyntax of Complement-head Sequences: Clause Structure and Word order Patterns in Kwa. New York: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Aboh, Enoch O. (2004b). ‘Snowballing Movement and Generalized Pied-piping’, in A. Breitbarth and H. van Riemsdijk (eds), Triggers. Berlin: Mouton, 15–47.Find this resource:

Aboh, Enoch O. (2004c). ‘Left or Right? A View from the Kwa Peripheral Positions’, in D. Adger, C. De Cat, and George Tsoulas (eds), Peripheries. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 165–191.Find this resource:

Aboh, Enoch O. (2006a). ‘When Verbal Predicates Go Fronting’, in I. Fiedler and A. Schwarz (eds), Papers on Information Structure in African Languages. Berlin: ZAS Papers in Linguistics 46: 21–48.Find this resource:

Aboh, Enoch O. (2006b). ‘Complementation in Saramaccan and Gungbe: The case of C-type modal particles’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24: 1–55.Find this resource:

Aboh, Enoch O. (2007). Focused versus non-focused wh-phrases, in Enoch Oladé Aboh, Katharina Hartmann, and Malte Zimmermann (eds), Focus Strategies in African Languages. The Interaction of Focus and Grammar in Niger-Congo and Afro-Asiatic. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 287–314.Find this resource:

Aboh, Enoch O. (2007a). ‘Leftward Focus versus Rightward Focus: the Kwa-Bantu Conspiracy’, SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics 15: 81–104.Find this resource:

Aboh, Enoch O. (2007b). ‘A “Mini” Relative Clause Analysis for Reduplicated Attributive Adjectives’, Linguistics in The Netherlands 24: 1–13.Find this resource:

Aboh, Enoch O. (2009). ‘Clause Structure and Verb Series’, Linguistic Inquiry 40: 1–33.Find this resource:

Aboh, Enoch O. (ed.). (2010). ‘DP-internal Information Structure’, Lingua 120: 781–1056.Find this resource:

Aboh, Enoch O. (2010a). ‘Information Structure Begins with the Numeration’, IBERIA 2: 12–42, http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/article/view/26/24.Find this resource:

(p. 836) Aboh, Enoch O. (2010b). ‘C-type Negation Markers on the Right Edge’, in E. O. Aboh and J. Essegbey (eds), Topics in Kwa Syntax. Dordrecht: Springer, 109–139.Find this resource:

Aboh, Enoch O. and Dyakonova, Marina (2009). ‘Predicate Doubling and Parallel Chains’, Lingua 119: 1035–1065.Find this resource:

Aboh, Enoch O., Hartmann, Katharina, and Zimmermann, Malte (eds) (2007). Focus Strategies in African Languages: The Interaction of Focus and Grammar in Niger-Congo and Afro-Asiatic. Berlin: Mouton.Find this resource:

Aboh, Enoch O. and Pfau, Roland (2011). ‘What’s a Wh-word Got to Do with it?’, in P. Benincà and N. Munaro (eds), Mapping the Left Periphery. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. New York: Oxford University Press, 91–124.Find this resource:

Aboh, Enoch O., Pfau, Roland, and Zeshan, Ulrike (2005). ‘When a Wh-word is not a Wh-word: The Case of Indian Sign Language’, in T. Bhattacharya (ed.), The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 2005. Berlin: Mouton, 11–43.Find this resource:

Aboh, Enoch O. and Smith, Norval (2012). ‘The Morphosyntax of Non-iconic Reduplications: A Case Study in Eastern Gbe and the Surinam Creoles’, in E. O. Aboh, N. Smith and Zribi-Hertz (eds), The Grammar of Reiteration in Creole and Non-Creole Languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 27–76.Find this resource:

Aboh, Enoch O. and Smith, Norval (2014). ‘Non-iconic reduplications in Eastern Gbe and Surinam’, in P. Muysken and N. Smith (eds), Surviving the Middle Passage. Berlin: Mouton, 241–260.Find this resource:

Abraham, Werner (1991). ‘Discourse Particles in German: How Does their Illocutive Force Come About?’, in W. Abraham (ed.), Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 203–252.Find this resource:

Abraham, Werner and de Meij, Sjaak (eds). (1986). Topic, Focus, and Configurationality: Papers From the 6th Groningen Grammar Talks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Abraham, Werner, Marácz, Laci, de Mey, Sjaak, and Scherpenisse, Wim (1986). Introduction, in Werner Abraham and Sjaak de Meij (eds), Topic, Focus, and Configurationality: Papers From the 6th Groningen Grammar Talks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–15.Find this resource:

Abrusán, Márta (2013). ‘A Note on Quasi-Presuppositions and Focus’, Journal of Semantics 30: 257–265.Find this resource:

Abusch, Dorit (2002). ‘Lexical Alternatives as a Source of Pragmatic Presuppositions’, in B. Jackson (ed.), Proceedings of SALT 12. Ithaca, New York: CLC Publications, 1–19.Find this resource:

Abusch, Dorit (2008). ‘Focus Presuppositions’, Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 55 (3–4): 319–330.Find this resource:

Abusch, Dorit (2010). ‘Presupposition Triggering from Alternatives’, Journal of Semantics 27: 37–80.Find this resource:

Adamec, Pržemysl (1966). Porjadok slov v sovremennom russkom jazyke. Prague: Academia.Find this resource:

Adamíková, Marcela (2004). ‘Kontrast oder Korrektur? Prosodische Disambiguierung bei negationshaltigen Adversativ-Konstruktionen in den Westslavinen’, Linguistische Arbeitsberichte, 82. Leipzig: Institut für Linguistik, Universität Leipzig.Find this resource:

Adger, David (1994). Functional Heads and Interpretation. PhD Dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Find this resource:

Adger, David (2007). ‘Stress and Phasal Syntax’, Linguistic Analysis 33: 238–266.Find this resource:

Adli, Aria (2011). ‘A Heuristic Mathematical Approach for Modeling Constraint Cumulativity: Contrastive Focus in Spanish and Catalan’, The Linguistic Review 28: 111–173.Find this resource:

Aelbrecht, Lobke (2010). The Syntactic Licensing of Ellipsis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

(p. 837) Afantenos, Stergos D. and Nicholas, Asher (2010). Testing SDRT’s right frontier, in Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, 1–9.Find this resource:

Ágel, Vilmos and Roland Kehrein (2013). ‘Sogenannte Koordinationsellipsen: von der Prosodie zur Theorie’, in M. Hennig (ed.), Die Ellipse: Neue Perspektiven auf ein altes Phänomen. (Linguistik—Impulse & Tendenzen 52. Series Editors: S. Günthner, K.-P. Konerding, W.-A. Liebert, and T. Roelcke). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 107–158.Find this resource:

Agouraki, Yoryia (1990). ‘On the Projection of Maximal Categories: The Case of CP and FP in Modern Greek’, UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 2: 183–200.Find this resource:

Aissen, Judith L. (1992). ‘Topic and Focus in Mayan’, Language 68 (1): 43–80.Find this resource:

Alboiu, Gabriela (2002). The Features of Movement in Romanian. PhD dissertation, University of Bucharest Press.Find this resource:

Alboiu, Gabriela (2004). ‘Optionality at the Interface: Triggering Focus in Romanian’, Triggers 75: 49.Find this resource:

Alday, Phillip, Matthias Schlesewsky, and Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky (2014). ‘Towards a Computational Model of Actor-based Language Comprehension’, Neuroinformatics 12: 143–79.Find this resource:

Alexiadou, Artemis (2006). ‘Left Dislocation (Including CLLD)’, in Martin Everaert, Henk Van Riemsdjik, Rob Goedemans, and Bartt Hollebrandse (eds), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Find this resource:

Alexiadou, Artemis and Anagnostopoulou, Elena (1997). ‘Toward a Unified Account of Scrambling and Clitic Doubling’, in Werner Abraham and Elly Van Gelderen (eds), German: Syntactic Problems—Problematic Syntax. Tubingen: Max Niemeyer, 142–161.Find this resource:

Alexiadou, Artemis and Anagnostopoulou, Elena (1998). ‘Parameterizing AGR: Word Order, V-Movement, and EPP-Checking’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16(3): 491–539.Find this resource:

Alexiadou, Artemis and Anagnostopoulou, Elena (2000). ‘Greek Syntax: A Principle and Parameters Perspective’, Journal of Greek Linguistics 1: 171–222.Find this resource:

Alexiadou, Artemis and Anagnostopoulou, Elena (2001). ‘The Subject-in-Situ Generalization, and the Role of Case in Driving Computations’, Linguistic Inquiry 32(2): 193–231.Find this resource:

Alexiadou, Artemis and Gengel, Kirsten (2012). ‘NP Ellipsis without Focus Movement/Projections: The Role of Classifiers’, in I. Kucerová and A. Neeleman (eds), Contrast and Positions in Information Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 177–205.Find this resource:

Alexopoulou, Theodora (1999). The Syntax of Discourse Functions in Greek: A Non-configurational Approach. PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Find this resource:

Alexopoulou, Theodora (2009). ‘Binding Illusions and Resumption in Greek’, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (C. Halpert, J. Hartman and D. Hill (eds), Proceedings of the 2007 Workshop on Greek Syntax and Semantics at MIT) 57: 34–48.Find this resource:

Alexopoulou, Theodora and Kolliakou, Dimitra (2002). ‘On Linkhood, Topicalization and Clitic Left Dislocation’, Journal of Linguistics 38(2): 193–245.Find this resource:

Allerton, David J. (1978). ‘The Notion of “Givenness” and its Relation to Presupposition and Theme’, Lingua 44: 133–168.Find this resource:

Aloni, Maria (2003). ‘Free Choice in Modal Contexts’, in Matthias Weisgerber (ed.), Proceedings of Sinn & Bedeutung, 7, 25–37.Find this resource:

Aloni, Maria and van Rooij, Robert (2002). ‘The Dynamics of Questions and Focus’, in Brendan Jackson (ed.), Proceedings of SALT XII. Ithaca, Cornell University: CLC Publications, 20–39.Find this resource:

Alonso-Ovalle, Luis (2006). Disjunction in Alternative Semantics. GLSA, Dept. of Linguistics, South College, UMASS, Amherst MA 01003: University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation.Find this resource:

(p. 838) Alonso-Ovalle, Luis (2009). ‘Counterfactuals, Correlatives, and Disjunction’, Linguistics and Philosophy 32: 207–244.Find this resource:

Alonso-Ovalle, Luis and Menendez-Benito, Paula (2010). ‘Modal Indefinites’, Natural Language Semantics 18: 1–31.Find this resource:

Alter, Kai (1997). ‘Fokusprosodie im Russischen: Phonologische und akustische Korrelate von Informationsstrukturierung’, in U. Junghanns and G. Zybatow (eds), Formale Slavistik, Frankfurt a. Main: Vervuert, 399–414.Find this resource:

Alter, Kai, Mleinek, Ina, Rohe, Tobias, Steube, Anita, and Umbach, Carla (2001). ‘Kontrastprosodie in Sprachproduktion und -perzeption’ [Contrastive Focus in Speech Production and Perception], Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 77: 59–79.Find this resource:

Altmann, Hans (1981). Formen der Herausstellung im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Find this resource:

Altmann, Gerry T. M. and Kamide, Yuki (2004). Now you see it, now you don’t: Mediating the mapping between language and visual world, in J. Henderson and F. Ferreira (eds), The Interface of Language, Vision, and Action: Eye Movements and the Visual World, New York: Psychology Press.Find this resource:

Altmann, Hans (1981). Formen der ‘Herausstellung’ im Deutschen: Rechtsversetzung, Linksversetzung, freies Thema und verwandte Konstruktionen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Find this resource:

Altmann, Hans (1987). ‘Zur Problematik der Konstitution von Satzmodi als Formtypen’, in J. Meibauer (ed.), Satzmodu szwischen Grammatik und Pragmatik. Referate anlässlich der 8. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft, Heidelberg 1986. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 22–56.Find this resource:

Altmann, Hans (1993). ‘Satzmodus’, in J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld, and Th. Vennemann (eds), Syntax. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1006–1029.Find this resource:

Amaral, Patrícia (2010). ‘Entailment, Assertion, and Textual Coherence: The Case of almost and barely’, Linguistics 43: 525–545.Find this resource:

Ambar, Manuela (1999). ‘Aspects of the Syntax of Focus in Portuguese’, in G. Rebuschi and L. Tuller (eds), The Grammar of Focus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 23–53.Find this resource:

Ambrazaitis, Gilbert (2009). Nuclear Intonation in Swedish: Evidence from Experimental-Phonetic Studies and a Comparison with German. Dissertation, Travaux de l’Institut de Linguistique de Lund, 49. Centre for Languages and Literature, Lund University.Find this resource:

Ameka, Felix (1992). ‘Focus Constructions in Ewe and Akan’, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 17: 1–25.Find this resource:

Ameka, Felix (2010). ‘Information Packaging Constructions in Kwa: Micro-variation and Typology’, in E. O. Aboh and J. Essegbey (eds), Topics in Kwa Syntax. Dordrecht: Springer, 141–176.Find this resource:

An, Duk-Ho (2007). ‘Clauses in Noncanonical Positions at the Syntax–Phonology Interface’, Syntax 10: 38–79.Find this resource:

Anagnostopoulou, Elena (1994). Clitic Dependencies in Modern Greek. PhD dissertation, Salzburg University.Find this resource:

Anagnostopoulou, Elena (1997). ‘Clitic Left Dislocation and Contrastive Left Dislocation’, in E. Anagnostopoulou, H. van Riemsdijk, and F. Zwarts (eds), Materials on Left Dislocation. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 151–192.Find this resource:

Anagnostopoulou, Elena (1999). ‘Conditions on Clitic Doubling in Greek’, in H. van Riemsdijk (ed.), Clitics in the Languages of Europe. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 761–789.Find this resource:

Anagnostopoulou, Elena (2003). The Syntax of Ditransitives: Evidence from Clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

(p. 839) Anagnostopoulou, Elena (2006). ‘Clitic Doubling’, in M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk (eds), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, vol. 1, Oxford: Blackwell, 519–581.Find this resource:

AnderBois, Scott (2009). If -suspenders and the existential presupposition of questions. Paper presented at CUSP 2.Find this resource:

AnderBois, Scott, Adrian, Brasoveanu, and Robert, Henderson (2011). ‘Crossing the Appositive/At-issue Meaning Boundary. In Proceedings of SALT, vol. 20, 328–346.Find this resource:

Anderson, Anne H., Miles Bader, Ellen Gurman Bard, Elizabeth Boyle, Gwyneth Doherty, Simon Garrod, Stephen Isard, Jacqueline Kowtko, Jan McAllister, Jim Miller, Catherine Sotillo, Henry Thompson, and Regina Weinert (1991). ‘The HCRC Map Task Corpus’, Language and Speech 34: 351–366.Find this resource:

Anderson, Jane E. and Phillip J. Holcomb (2005). ‘An Electrophysiological Investigation of the Effects of Coreference on Word Repetition and Synonymy’, Brain and Language, 94 (2): 200–216.Find this resource:

Anderssen, Merete, Kristine Bentzen, Yulia Rodina, and Marit Westergaard (2010). ‘The Acquisition of Apparent Optionality: Word Order in Subject and Object Shift Constructions in Norwegian’, in M. Anderssen, K. Bentzen, and M. Westergaard (eds), Variation in the Input. Dordrecht: Springer, 241–270.Find this resource:

Anderssen, Merete, Kristine Bentzen, and Yulia Rodina (2012a). ‘Topicality and Complexity in the Acquisition of Norwegian Object Shift’, Language Acquisition 19: 39–72.Find this resource:

Anderssen, Merete, Paula Fikkert, Roksolana Mykhaylyk, and Yulia Rodina (2012b). ‘The Dative Alternation in Norwegian Child Language’, Nordlyd 39: 23–43.Find this resource:

Androulakis, Anna (2001). ‘Clitics and Doubling in Greek’, Reading Working Papers in Linguistics 5: 85–111.Find this resource:

Anscombre, Jean-Claude and Oswald Ducrot (1977). ‘Deux mais en français?’, Lingua 43(1): 23–40.Find this resource:

Anscombre, Jean-Claude and Oswald Ducrot (1983). L’Argumentation dans la Langue. Bruxelles: Pierre Mardaga.Find this resource:

Antinucci, Francesco and Guglielmo Cinque (1977). ‘Sull’ordine delle parole in Italiano: l’emarginazione.’ Studi di Grammatica Italiana 6: 121–146.Find this resource:

Anttila, Arto, Matthew Adams, and Michael Speriosu (2010). ‘The Role of Prosody in the English Dative Alternation’, Language and Cognitive Processes 25: 946–981.Find this resource:

Aoun, Joseph and Elabbas Benmamoun (1998). ‘Minimality, Reconstruction and PF Movement’, Linguistic Inquiry 29: 569–598.Find this resource:

Aranovich, Raúl (2013). ’Transitivity and Polysynthesis in Fijian’, Language 89: 465–500.Find this resource:

Ariel, Mira (1988). ‘Referring and Accessibility’, Journal of Linguistics 24: 65–87.Find this resource:

Ariel, Mira (1990). Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents, London: Routledge.Find this resource:

Aristoteles (2007). Metaphysik. Schriften zur Ersten Philosophie. Übersetzt und herausgegeben von Franz F. Schwarz. Stuttgart: Reclam.Find this resource:

Arnaudova, Olga (2001). ‘Prosodic Movement and Information Focus in Bulgarian’. in S. Franks, T. Holloway King, and M. Yadroff (eds), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 9. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, 19–37.Find this resource:

Arnaudova, Olga (2005). ‘Contrastive Features, Clitic Doubling and the Left Periphery of the Bulgarian Clause’, in S. Franks (ed.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Lingusitics 13, The South Carolina Meeting 2004. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, 13–26.Find this resource:

Arnold, Jennifer E. (1998). Reference form and discourse patterns. PhD dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Find this resource:

Arnold, Jennifer E. (2008). ‘THE BACON Not the Bacon: How Children and Adults Understand Accented and Unaccented Noun Phrases’, Cognition 108: 69–99.Find this resource:

(p. 840) Arnold, Jennifer E. (2010). ‘How Speakers Refer: The Role of Accessibility’, Language and Linguistics Compass 4: 187–203.Find this resource:

Arnold, Jennifer E. and Duane G. Watson (2015). ‘Synthesising Meaning and Processing Approaches to Prosody: Performance Matters’, Language and Cognitive Processes 30: 88–102.Find this resource:

Arnold, Jennifer, Anthony Losongco, Thomas Wasow, and Ryan Ginstrom (2000). ‘Heaviness vs. Newness: The Effects of Structural Complexity and Discourse Status on Constituent Ordering’, Language, 76: 28–55.Find this resource:

Arregi, Karlos (2002). Focus on Basque movements. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Find this resource:

Arregi, Karlos (2003). ‘Clitic Left Dislocation is Contrastive Topicalization’, in Proceedings of the 26th Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium (Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 9.1). Penn Linguistics Club, Philadelphia. 31–44.Find this resource:

Arregi, Karlos (2006). ‘Stress and Islands in Northern Bizkaian Basque’, in José Ignacio Hualde and Joseba A. Lakarra (eds), Studies in Historical and Basque Linguistics Dedicated to the Memory of R.L. Trask, 81–106. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea.Find this resource:

Artstein, Ron and Massimo Poesio (2008). ‘Inter-Coder Agreement for Computational Linguistics’, Computational Linguistics 34(4): 556–596.Find this resource:

Arvaniti, Amalia (1992). ‘Secondary Stress: Evidence from Modern Greek’, in G. J. Docherty and D. R. Ladd (eds), Papers in Laboratory Phonology II: Gesture, Segment, Prosody. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 398–423.Find this resource:

Arvaniti, Amalia (1998). ‘Phrase Accents Revisited: Comparative Evidence from Standard and Cypriot Greek’, in Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, Sydney, vol. 7, 2883–2886.Find this resource:

Arvaniti, Amalia, and Mary Baltazani (2005). ‘Intonational Analysis and Prosodic Annotation of Greek Spoken Corpora’, in S.-A. Jun (ed.), Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 84–117.Find this resource:

Arvaniti, Amalia, and Svetlana Godjevac (2003). ‘The Origins and Scope of Final Lowering in English and Greek’, in Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Universidad Autonoma de Barcelona, 1077–1080.Find this resource:

Arvaniti, Amalia, and D. Robert Ladd (1995). ‘Tonal Alignment and the Representation of Accentual Targets’, in Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Stockholm, vol. 4, 220–223.Find this resource:

Arvaniti, Amalia, D. Robert Ladd, and Ineke Mennen (1998). ‘Stability of Tonal Alignment: The Case of Greek Prenuclear Accents’, Journal of Phonetics 26: 3–25.Find this resource:

Arvaniti, Amalia, D. Robert Ladd, and Ineke Mennen (2000). ‘What is a Starred Tone? Evidence from Greek’, in M. Broe and J. Pierrehumbert (eds), Papers in Laboratory Phonology V: Acquisition and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 119–131.Find this resource:

Arvaniti, Amalia, D. Robert Ladd, and Ineke Mennen (2006). ‘Tonal Association and Tonal Alignment: Evidence from Greek Polar Questions and Contrastive Statements’, Language and Speech 49(4): 421–450.Find this resource:

Asher, Nicholas (1993). Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Find this resource:

Asher, Nicholas (2008). Troubles on the right frontier, in A. Benz and P. Kühnlein (eds), Constraints in Discourse. John Benjamins Publishing, 29–52.Find this resource:

Asher, Nicholas and Alex Lascarides (1998). ‘Bridging’, Journal of Semantics 15(1): 83–113.Find this resource:

Asher, Nicholas and Alex Lascarides (2003). ‘Logics of Conversation’, Studies in Natural Language Processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

(p. 841) Astruc, Lluïsa (2004). ‘Right-dislocations: Influence of Information Structure on Prosodic Phrasing and Intonation’, Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 1.Find this resource:

Astruc, Lluïsa (2005). The Intonation of Extra-Sentential Elements in Catalan and English. PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge.Find this resource:

Atlas, Jay David (2005). Logic, Meaning, and Conversation, Appendix 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Atlas, Jay and Stephen C. Levinson (1981). ‘It-clefts, Informativeness, and Logical Form’, in P. Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 1–61.Find this resource:

Avesani, Cinzia and M. Vayra (2003). ‘Broad, Narrow and Contrastive Focus in Florentine Italian’, in M. J. Solé, D. Recasens, and J. Romero (eds), Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 1803–1806.Find this resource:

Axel, Katrin (2007). Studies on Old High German Syntax. Left Sentence Periphery, Verb Placement and Verb Second. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Find this resource:

Aylett, Matthey, and Alice Turk (2004). ‘The Smooth Signal Redundancy Hypothesis: A Functional Explanation for Relationships between Redundancy, Prosodic Prominence, and Duration in Spontaneous Speech’, Language and Speech 47: 31–56.Find this resource:

Baayen, R. Harald, Douglas J. Davidson, and Douglas M. Bates (2008). ‘Mixed-effects Modelling with Crossed Random Effects for Subjects and Items’, Journal of Memory and Language 59: 390–412.Find this resource:

Baayen, R. Harald and Petar Milin (2010). ‘Analyzing Reaction Times’, International Journal of Psychological Research 3(2): 12–28.Find this resource:

Bach, Emmon et al. (eds). (1995). Quantification in Natural Language. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Find this resource:

Bach, Kent (1999). ‘The Myth of Conventional Implicature’, Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 327–66.Find this resource:

Bachrach, Asaf and Roni Katzir (2006). ‘Spelling out QR’, in E. Puig-Waldmüller (ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11, Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra, 63–75.Find this resource:

Bader, Markus (1998). ‘Prosodic Influences on Reading Syntactically Ambiguous Sentences’, in J. Fodor and F. Ferreira (eds), Reanalysis in Sentence Processing. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1–46.Find this resource:

Bader, Markus and Michael Meng (1999). ‘Subject–Object Ambiguities in German Embedded Clauses: An Across-the-board Comparison’, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 28: 121–143.Find this resource:

Bailyn, John F. (1995). A Configurational Approach to Russian ‘free’ Word Order. PhD thesis, Cornell University.Find this resource:

Bailyn, John F. (2012). The Syntax of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Baker, Leroy C. (1970). ‘Notes on the Description of English Questions: The Role of an Abstract Question Morpheme’, Foundation of Language 6: 197–219.Find this resource:

Baker, Mark (1996). The Polysynthesis Parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Baker, Mark C. (2001). ‘The Natures of Nonconfigurationality’, in Mark Baltin and Chris Collins (eds), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, 407–438.Find this resource:

Baker, Mark (2003). ‘Agreement, Dislocation, and Partial Configurationality’, in Andrew Carnie, Heidi Harley, and MaryAnn Willie (eds), Formal Approaches to Function in Grammar: In Honor of Eloise Jelinek. Amsterdam/New York: John Benjamins, 107–132.Find this resource:

Baker, Mark C. and Lisa de Mena Travis (1997). ‘Mood as Verbal Definiteness in a “Tenseless” Language’, Natural Language Semantics 1: 43–83.Find this resource:

Baker-Shenk, Charlotte L. (1983). A Microanalysis of the Nonmanual Components of Questions in American Sign Language. PhD Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Find this resource:

Balkenende, Pieter (1995). Top ik drop je: Over topic-drop in het Nederlands. MA thesis, Utrecht University.Find this resource:

(p. 842) Baltazani, Mary (2002). Quantifier Scope and the Role of Intonation in Greek. PhD dissertation, UCLA.Find this resource:

Baltazani, Mary (2003a). ‘Broad Focus across Sentence Types in Greek’, in Proceedings of the Eurospeech 2003. Geneva, Switzerland.Find this resource:

Baltazani, Mary (2003b). ‘Pragmatics, Intonation, and Word Order in Greek’, Interfaces prosodiques 2003, Préactes, 14–19.Find this resource:

Baltazani, Mary, and Sun-Ah Jun (1999). ‘Focus and Topic Intonation in Greek’, in Proceedings of the XIVth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, vol. 2, 1305–1308.Find this resource:

Barberà, Gemma (2012). ‘When Wide Scope is not Enough: Scope and Topicality of Discourse Referents’, in M. Aloni, F. Roelofsen, G. Sassoon, K. Schulz, V. Kimmelman, and M. Westera (eds), Amsterdam Colloquium 2011 (LNCS 7218). Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 62–71.Find this resource:

Barbier, Isabella (2000). ‘An Experimental Study of Scrambling and Object Shift in the Acquisition of Dutch’, in S. M. Powers, and C. Hamm (eds), The Acquisition of Scrambling and Cliticization. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 41–69.Find this resource:

Barbiers, Sjef (2005). ‘Variation in the Morphosyntax of “one” ’, Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 8 (3): 159–183.Find this resource:

Barbosa, Pilar (2009). ‘Two Kinds of Subject Pro’, Studia Linguistica 63: 2–58.Find this resource:

Barker, Stephen (2003). ‘Truth and Conventional Implicature’, Mind 112: 1–33.Find this resource:

Barnes, Betsy (1985). Pragmatics of Left Detachment in Spoken Standard French. Amsterdam/New York: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Barr, Dale J. (2008). ‘Analyzing “visual world” eyetracking data using multilevel logistic regression’, Journal of Memory and Language, Special Issue: Emerging Data Analysis 59: 457–474.Find this resource:

Barr, Dale J., Timothy M. Gann, and Russell S. Pierce (2011). ‘Anticipatory Baseline Effects and Information Integration in Visual World Studies’, Acta Psychologica 137: 201–207.Find this resource:

Bartels, Christine (2004). ‘Acoustic Correlates of “second occurrence” Focus: Towards an Experimental Investigation’, in H. Kamp and B. Partee (eds), Context-dependence in the Analysis of Linguistic Meaning. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 345–361.Find this resource:

Bartels, Christine and John, Kingston (1994). ‘Salient Pitch Cues in the Perception of Contrastive Focus’, in P. Bosch and R. van der Sandt (eds), Focus and Natural Language Processing. Vol. 1. Intonation and Syntax, 1–10.Find this resource:

Barwise, Jon and Robin Cooper (1981). ‘Generalized quantifiers and natural language’, Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 159–219.Find this resource:

Bates, Douglas M. and Martin Maechler (2010). ‘lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes’. Available at http://lme4.r-forge.r-project.org/, R package version 0.999375-33.

Bates, Elizabeth (1976). Language and Context: The Acquisition of Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.Find this resource:

Baumann, Stefan (2006). The Intonation of Givenness—Evidence from German. PhD thesis, Saarland University. Linguistische Arbeiten 508. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Find this resource:

Baumann, Stefan and Martine Grice (2005). ‘The Intonation of Accessibility’. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1636–1657.Find this resource:

Baumann, Stefan and Arndt Riester (2012). ‘Referential and Lexical Givenness: Semantic, Prosodic and Cognitive Aspects’, in G. Elordieta and P. Prieto (eds), Prosody and Meaning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 119–161.Find this resource:

Baumann, Stefan and Arndt Riester (2013). ‘Coreference, Lexical Givenness and Prosody in German’, in J. Hartmann, J. Radó, and S. Winkler (eds), Lingua 136: 16–37 (Special Issue ‘Information Structure Triggers’).Find this resource:

(p. 843) Baumann, Stefan and Petra B. Schumacher (2012). ‘(De-)Accentuation and the Processing of Information Status: Evidence from Event-related Brain Potentials’, Language and Speech, 55 (3): 361–381.Find this resource:

Baumann, Stefan, Caren Brinckmann, Silvia Hansen-Schirra, Geert-Jan Kruijff, Ivana Kruijff-Korbayová, Stella Neumann, Erich Steiner, Elke Teich, and Hans Uszkoreit (2004). ‘The MULI Project. Annotation and Analysis of Information Structure in German and English’, in Proceedings of LREC 2004. Lisbon, 1489–1492.Find this resource:

Baumann, Stefan, Martine Grice, and Susanne Steindamm (2006). ‘Prosodic Marking of Focus Domains—Categorical or Gradient?’, Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2006, 301–304.Find this resource:

Baumann, Stefan, Johannes, Becker, Martine, Grice, and Doris, Mücke (2007). ‘Tonal and Articulatory Marking of Focus in German’, Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Saarbrücken, 1029–1032.Find this resource:

Baumann, Stefan, Doris Mücke, and Johannes Becker (2010). ‘Expression of Second Occurrence Focus in German’, Linguistische Berichte 221: 61–78.Find this resource:

Bayer, Josef (1996). Directionality and Logical Form. On the scope of focussing particles in wh-in-situ. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Find this resource:

Bayer, Josef (2001). ‘Asymmetry in Emphatic Topicalization’, in Caroline Féry and Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds), Audiatur Vox Sapientiae, Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 15–47.Find this resource:

Bayer, Josef and Probal Dasgupta (Accepted). Emphatic topicalization and the structure of the left periphery. Syntax.Find this resource:

Bayer, Josef and Jaklin Kornfilt (1994). ‘Against Scrambling as an Instance of Move-Alpha’, in Norbert Corver and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), Studies on Scrambling, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 17–60.Find this resource:

Bayer, Josef, and Hans-Georg Obenauer (2011). ‘Discourse Particles, Clause Structure, and Question Types’, The Linguistic Review 28: 449–491.Find this resource:

Bearth, Thomas (2003). ‘Syntax’, in Derek Nurse, and Gérard Philippson (eds), The Bantu Languages. London: Routledge, 121–142.Find this resource:

Beaver, David (2010). ‘Have you Noticed that your Belly Button Lint Colour is Related to the Colour of your Clothing?’, in R. Bäuerle, U. Reyle, and E. Zimmermann (eds), Presuppositions and Discourse: Essays offered to Hans Kamp. Oxford: Elsevier, 65–99.Find this resource:

Beaver, David and Brady Clark (2003). ‘Always and Only: Why Not All Focus Sensitive Operators Are Alike’, Natural Language Semantics 11: 323–362.Find this resource:

Beaver, David and Brady Clark (2008). Sense and Sensitivity. How Focus Determines Meaning. Chichester: Wiley & Sons.Find this resource:

Beaver, David and Bart Geurts (2011). ‘Presupposition’, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/presupposition/).

Beaver, David and Bart Geurts (2012). ‘Presupposition’, in K. von Heusinger, C. Maienborn, and P. Portner (eds), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Volume 3. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 2432–2459.Find this resource:

Beaver, David and Dan Velleman (2011). ‘The Communicative Significance of Primary and Secondary’ Accents. Lingua 121: 1671–1692.Find this resource:

Beaver, David, Brady Clark, Edward Flemming, Florian Jaeger, and Maria Wolters (2007). ‘When Semantics Meets Phonetics: Acoustical Studies of Second Occurrence Focus’, Language 83 (2): 245–276.Find this resource:

Beck, Sigrid (1996a). ‘Quantified Structures as Barriers for LF Movement’, Natural Language Semantics 4: 1–56.Find this resource:

(p. 844) Beck, Sigrid (1996b). Wh-Constructions and Transparent Logical Form. PhD dissertation, Universität Tübingen. Available at http://www.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de.Find this resource:

Beck, Sigrid (2006a). Focus on Again. Linguistics and Philosophy 29: 277–314.Find this resource:

Beck, Sigrid (2006b). ‘Intervention Effects Follow from Focus Interpretation’, Natural Language Semantics 14: 1–56.Find this resource:

Beck, Sigrid (2007). ‘The Grammar of Focus Interpretation’, in Uli Sauerland and Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds), Interfaces + Recursion = Grammar?. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 255–280.Find this resource:

Beck, Sigrid, and Shin-Sook Kim (1997). ‘On WH- and Operator Scope in Korean’, Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6: 339–384.Find this resource:

Beck, Sigrid and Arnim von Stechow (2015). ‘Events, Times and Worlds - an LF Architecture’, in C. Fortmann, A. Lübbe and I. Rapp (eds.), Situationsargumente im Nominalbereich, 13. Berlin: de Gruyter, 13–47.Find this resource:

Beck, Sigrid and Shravan Vasishth (2009). ‘Multiple Focus’, Journal of Semantics 26: 159–184.Find this resource:

Beckman, Mary E. (1986). Stress and Non-Stress Accent. Dordrecht: Foris.Find this resource:

Beckman, Mary and Gayle Elam Ayers (1993). Guidelines for ToBI Labelling. The Ohio State University Research Foundation.Find this resource:

Beckman, Mary and Jan, Edwards (1990). ‘Lengthening and Shortening and the Nature of Prosodic Constituency’, in John Kingston and Mary Beckman (eds), Laboratory Phonology I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 152–178.Find this resource:

Beckman, Mary E. and Janet Pierrehumbert (1986). ‘Intonational Structure in Japanese and English’, Phonology Yearbook 3: 255–309.Find this resource:

Beckman, Mary E., Julia Hischberg, and Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel (2005). ‘The Original ToBI System and the Evolution of the ToBI Framework’, in Sun-Ah Jun (ed.), Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 9–54.Find this resource:

Behaghel, Otto (1909). Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern. Indogermanische Forschungen 25.Find this resource:

Behaghel, Otto (1930). ‘Von deutscher Wortstellung’, Zeitschrift für Deutschkunde, 44: 81–89.Find this resource:

Behaghel, Otto (1932). Deutsche Syntax. Eine geschichtliche Darstellung. vol. IV. Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung.Find this resource:

Bell, David C. and Alexander M. Bell (1879). Bell’s Standard Elocutionist. London: Hodder & Stoughton.Find this resource:

Belletti, Adriana (1999). ‘Inversion as Focalization and Related Questions’, Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics 7: 9–45.Find this resource:

Belletti, Adriana (2001). ‘Inversion as Focalization’, in A. Hulk and J. Y. Pollock (eds), Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press, 60–90.Find this resource:

Belletti, Adriana (2002). ‘Aspects of the Low IP Area’, in L. Rizzi (ed.), The Structure of IP and CP. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. New York: Oxford University Press, 16–51.Find this resource:

Belletti, Adriana (2004a). ‘Aspects of the Low IP Area’, in Luigi Rizzi (ed.), The Structure of CP and IP. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures Volume 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 16–51.Find this resource:

Belletti, Adriana (2004b). Structures and Beyond. New York: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Belletti, Adriana (2009). Structures and Strategies. Routledge Leading Linguists. London and New York: Routledge.Find this resource:

Belletti, Adriana (2013). ‘Revisiting the CP of Clefts’, in Discourse and Grammar. From Sentence Types to Lexical Categories. BERLINO:de Gruyter, 91–114.Find this resource:

Belletti, Adriana (2014). ‘The Focus Map of Clefts: Extraposition and Predication’, in U.Shlonky (ed.), Beyond Functional Sequence (The Cartography of Syntactic Structures series), Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

(p. 845) Belletti, Adriana and Luigi Rizzi (1988), ‘Psych-verbs and TH-theory’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6: 291–352.Find this resource:

Belletti, Adriana and Luigi Rizzi (1996). Parameters and Functional Heads. New York: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Benatar, Ashley and Charles, Clifton, Jr. (2014). ‘Newness, Givenness and Discourse Updating: Evidence from Eye Movements’, Journal of Memory and Language 71: 1–16.Find this resource:

Benazzo, Sandra, Christine Dimroth, Clive Perdue, and Marzena Watorek (2004). ‘Le Rôle des Particules Additives dans la Construction de la Cohésion Discursive en Langue Maternelle et en Langue Etrangère’, Langages 155: 76–105.Find this resource:

Benazzo, Sandra, Clive Perdue, and Marzena Watorek (2012). ‘Additive Scope Particles and Anaphoric Linkage in Narrative and Descriptive Texts: A Developmental Study in French L1 and L2’, in M. Watorek, S. Benazzo, and M. Hickmann (eds), Comparative Perspectives on Language Acquisition. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters, 350–374.Find this resource:

Bende-Farkas, Ágnes (2005). ‘Negative Concord and Focus in Hungarian’, in P. Dekker (ed.), Proceedings of the 15th Amsterdam Colloquium. Amsterdam: ILLC.Find this resource:

Benguerel, André-Pierre (1973). ‘Corrélats physiologiques de l’accent en français’, Phonetica 27: 21–35.Find this resource:

Benincà, Paola (1988). ‘L’ordine degli elementi della frase e le costruzioni marcate’, in L. Renzi (ed.), Grande Grammatica Italiana di Consultazione, vol. 1, Bologna: Il Mulino, 129–194.Find this resource:

Benincà, Paola (2006). ‘A Detailed Map of the Left Periphery of Medieval Romance’, in R. Zanuttini, H. Campos, E. Herburger, and P. H. Portner (eds), Crosslinguistic Research in Syntax and Semantics. Negation, Tense, and Clausal Architecture, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Find this resource:

Benincà, Paola and Nicola Munaro (eds) (2011). Mapping the Left Periphery. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. New York: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Benincà, Paola and Cecilia Poletto (2004). ‘Topic, Focus and V2. Defining the CP Sublayers’, in Luigi Rizzi (ed.), The Structure of CP and IP. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures Volume 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 52–75.Find this resource:

Bennett, Ryan, Emily Elfner, and Jim McCloskey (2015). Lightest to the Right: An Apparently Anomalous Displacement in Irish. Linguistic Inquiry.Find this resource:

Bennis, Hans and Teun Hoekstra (1984). ‘Gaps and Parasitic Gaps’, The Linguistic Review 4: 29–87.Find this resource:

Benor, S. B. and Levy, R. (2006). The chicken or the egg? a probabilistic analysis of English binomials. Language, 82(2):233–278.Find this resource:

van Benthem, Johan (1986). Essays in Logical Semantics. Dordrecht: Reidel.Find this resource:

van Bergen, Geertje and Helen de Hoop (2009). ‘Topics Cross-linguistically’, The Linguistic Review, Special Issue on Topics Cross-Linguistically 26: 173–176.Find this resource:

Berger, Frauke and Barbara Höhle (2012). ‘Restrictions on Addition: Children’s Interpretation of the Focus Particles Auch “Also” and Nur “Only” in German’, Journal of Child Language 39: 383–410.Find this resource:

Bergsma, Wenda (2002). ‘Children’s Interpretations of Dutch Sentences with the Focus Particle Alleen (“Only”)’, in I. Lasser (ed.), The Process of Language Acquisition: Proceedings of the 1999 GALA Conference. Frankfurt (Main): Peter Lang, 263–280.Find this resource:

Bergsma, Wenda (2006). ‘(Un)stressed Ook in Dutch’, in V. van Geenhoven (ed.), Semantics in Acquisition. Dordrecht: Springer, 350–374.Find this resource:

van Berkum, Jos J. A., Colin M. Brown, and Peter Hagoort (1999a). ‘Early Referential Context Effects in Sentence Processing: Evidence from Event-related Brain Potentials’, Journal of Memory and Language 41: 147–182.Find this resource:

van Berkum, Jos J. A., Peter Hagoort, and Colin Brown (1999b). ‘Semantic Integration in Discourse: Evidence from the N400’, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 11: 657–671.Find this resource:

(p. 846) Berman, Ruth (2009). ‘Language Development in Narrative Contexts’, in E. L. Bavin (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Child Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 355–376.Find this resource:

Berman, Stephen (1987). ‘Situation-based Semantics for Adverbs of Quantification’, in Blevins, J. and A. Vainikka (eds), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 12. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.Find this resource:

Berman, Stephen (1989). ‘An Analysis of Quantificational Variability in Indirect Questions’, in Emmon Bach, Angelika Kratzer, and Barbara Partee (eds), Papers on Quantification. Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Find this resource:

Bernstein, Judy (2001). ‘Focusing the “Right” Way in Romance Determiner Phrases’, Probus 13: 1–29.Find this resource:

Besson, Mireille, Marta, Kutas, and Petten, van Cyma(1992). ‘An Event-Related Potential (ERP) Analysis of Semantic Congruity and Repetition Effects in Sentences’, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 4 (2): 132–149.Find this resource:

Bhatt, Rakesh Mohan (1999). Verb Movement and the Syntax of Kashmiri. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Find this resource:

Bhatt, Rajesh and Roumyana Pancheva (2006). ‘Conditionals’, in Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 638–687.Find this resource:

Bianchi, Valentina (2013). ‘On Focus Movement in Italian’, in M. V. Camacho-Taboada, A. Jiménez Fernández, J. Martín-Gonzáles, and M. Reyes-Tejedor (eds), Information Structure and Agreement. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 197–193.Find this resource:

Bianchi, Valentina and Giuliano Bocci (2012). ‘Should I Stay or Should I Go? Optional focus movement in Italian’, in Christopher Piñon (ed.), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 9: 1–18.Find this resource:

Bianchi, Valentina and Mara Frascarelli (2010). ‘Is Topic a Root Phenomenon?’, Iberia 2, 43–88.Find this resource:

Biber, Douglas (1993). ‘Representativeness in Corpus Design’, Literary and Linguistic Computing 8 (4): 243–257.Find this resource:

Biber, Douglas (2009). ‘Multi-Dimensional Approaches’, in A. Lüdeling and M. Kytö (eds), Corpus Linguistics. An International Handbook. Vol. 2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 822–855.Find this resource:

Biber, Douglas and James K. Jones (2009). ‘Quantitative Methods in Corpus Linguistics’, in A. Lüdeling and M. Kytö (eds), Corpus Linguistics. An International Handbook. Vol. 2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1286–1304.Find this resource:

Bickel, Balthasar (2003). ‘Referential Density in Discourse and Syntactic Typology’, Language 79: 708–736.Find this resource:

Bierwisch, Manfred (1963). Grammatik des deutschen Verbs. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Find this resource:

Bierwisch, Manfred (1980). ‘Semantic Structure and Illocutionary Force’, in J. F. Searle, F. Kiefer, and M. Bierwisch (eds), Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1–35.Find this resource:

Bildhauer, Felix (2011). ‘Mehrfache Vorfeldbesetzung und Informationsstruktur. Eine Bestandsaufnahme’, Deutsche Sprache 4 (11): 362–379.Find this resource:

Biloa, Edmond (2013). The Syntax of Tuki: A Cartographic Approach. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Find this resource:

Biq, Yung (1984). The Semantics and Pragmatics of Cai and Jiu in Mandarin Chinese. PhD Dissertation. Cornell University.Find this resource:

Biq, Yung (1988). ‘From Focus in Proposition to Focus in Speech Situation: cai and jiu in Mandarin Chinese’, Journal of Chinese Linguistics 16: 72–108.Find this resource:

Birch, Stacy L., Jason E. Albrecht, and Jerome L. Myers (2000). ‘Syntactic Focusing Structures Influence Discourse Processing’, Discourse Processes, 30: 285–304.Find this resource:

Birner, Betty and Gregory Ward (1998). Information Status and Non-Canonical Word Order in English. Amsterdam/New York: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

(p. 847) Bisang, Walter, Luming Wang, and Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky (2013). ‘Subjecthood in Chinese. Neurolinguistics meets typology’, in Z. Jing-Schmidt (ed.), Increased Empiricism: Recent Advances in Chinese Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 23–48.Find this resource:

Bittner, Dagmar, Milena Kuehnast, and Natalia Gagarina (2011). ‘Comprehension and Imitated Production of Personal Pronouns across Languages’, in A. Grimm, A. Müller, E. Ruigendijk, and C. Hamann (eds), Production–Comprehension Asymmetries in Child Language. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 73–97.Find this resource:

Björverud, Susanna (1998). A Grammar of Lalo. Lund: Lund University.Find this resource:

Blakemore, Sarah-J., Daniel M. Wolpert, and Chris D. Frith (1998). ‘Central Cancellation of Self-produced Tickle Sensation’, Nature Neuroscience 1 (7): 635–640.Find this resource:

Blanchon, Jean A. (1998). ‘Semantic/Pragmatic Conditions on the Tonology of the Kongo Noun-phrase: A Diachronic Hypothesis’, in Larry M. Hyman and Charles W. Kisseberth (eds), Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Tone. Stanford, CA: CSLI, 1–32.Find this resource:

Blanchon, Jean A. (1999). ‘ “Tone Cases” in Bantu Broup B.40’, in Jean A. Blanchon and Denis Creissels (eds), Issues in Bantu Tonology. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag, 37–82.Find this resource:

Blok, Peter (1993). The Interpretation of Focus. Dissertation, University of Groningen.Find this resource:

Blühdorn, H. (2012). ‘Faktizität, Wahrheit, Erwünschtheit. Negation, Negationsfokus und “Verum”-Fokus im Deutschen’, in H. Lohnstein and H. Blühdorn (eds), Wahrheit—Fokus—Negation (= Sonderheft der Linguistischen Berichte 18). Hamburg: Helmut Buske, 137–170.Find this resource:

Blühdorn, Hardarik and Horst, Lohnstein (2012). ‘Verumfokus im Deutschen. Versuch einer Synthese’, in H. Lohnstein and H. Blühdorn (eds), Wahrheit—Fokus—Negation (= Sonderheft der Linguistischen Berichte 18). Hamburg: Helmut Buske, 171–261.Find this resource:

Bobaljik, Jonathan David and Susi Wurmbrand (2012). ‘Word Order and Scope : Transparent Interfaces and the 3 ⁄ 4 Signature’, Linguistic Inquiry 43 (3): 371–421.Find this resource:

Bocci, Giuliano (2013). The Syntax–Prosody Interface: A Cartographic Perspective with Evidence from Italian. New York/Amestradm: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Bocci, Giuliano and Cinzia Avesani (2011). ‘Phrasal Prominences do not Need Pitch Movements: Postfocal Phrasal Heads in Italian’, in Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association.Find this resource:

Bocci, Giuliano and Cinzia Avesani (forthcoming). ‘Can the Metrical Structure of Italian Trigger Focus Movement?,’ in U. Shlonsky (ed.) Beyond Functional Sequence. New York: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Bock, J. Kathryn and Willem J. M. Levelt (1994). ‘Language Production: Grammatical Encoding, ma’, In Gernsbacher (ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 945–984.Find this resource:

Bock, J. Kathryn and Richard K. Warren (1985). ‘Conceptual Accessibility and Syntactic Structure in Sentence Formulation’, Cognition 21: 47–67.Find this resource:

Bock, Kathryn (1987). ‘Exploring Levels of Processing in Sentence Production’, in Natural Language Generation. Berlin: Springer, 351–363.Find this resource:

Bock, Kathryn J. and David E. Irwin (1980). ‘Syntactic Effects of Information Availability in Sentence Production’, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 19: 467–484.Find this resource:

Boersma, Paul and David Weenink (1996). ‘PRAAT, a system for doing phonetics by computer’. Report 132. Institute of Phonetic Sciences of the University of Amsterdam.Find this resource:

Bogusławski, Andrzej (1986). ‘Also from all so: On a Set of Particles in Service of Efficient Communication’, Journal of Pragmatics 10 (5): 615–633.Find this resource:

Bohnacker, Ute and Christina Rosén (2008). ‘The Clause-initial Position in L2 German declaratives’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition30: 511–538.Find this resource:

(p. 848) Bokamba, Eyamba Georges (1976). Question Formation in Some Bantu Languages. PhD dissertation, Indiana University.Find this resource:

Bolden, Galina B. (2008). ‘Reopening Russian Conversations: The Discourse Particle -to and the Negotiation of Interpersonal Accountability in Closings’, Human Communication Research 34 (1): 99–136.Find this resource:

Bolinger, Dwight (1958). ‘A Theory of Pitch Accent in English’, Word 14: 109–149.Find this resource:

Bolinger, Dwight (1961). ‘Contrastive Accent and Contrastive Stress’, Language 37(1): 83–96.Find this resource:

Bolinger, Dwight (1972a). ‘Accent is Predictable (if you’re a mind-reader)’, Language 48: 613–644.Find this resource:

Bolinger, Dwight (1972b). ‘A Look at Equations and Cleft Sentences’, in E. Scherabon Firchow et al. (eds), Studies for Einar Haugen. The Hague: Mouton, 96–114.Find this resource:

Bolinger, Dwight (1978). ‘Intonation across Languages’, in J. H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Human Language. Vol. 2. Phonology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 471–524.Find this resource:

Bolinger, Dwight L. (1982). ‘Intonation and its Parts’, Language 58: 505–533.Find this resource:

Bolinger, Dwight L. (1983). ‘Intonation and Gesture’, American Speech 58: 156–174.Find this resource:

Bondaruk, Anna (2009). ‘Constraints on Predicate Clefting in Polish’, in G. Zybatow, U. Junghanns, D. Lenertová, and P. Biskup (eds), Studies in Formal Slavic Phonology, Morphology, Syntax, Semantics and Information Structure: Proceedings of FDSL 7, Leipzig 7. Bern: Peter Lang, 65–78.Find this resource:

Bonnot, Christine (1986). ‘Emplois de la particule -to’, Les Particules Enonciatives en Russe Contemporain 1: 21–30.Find this resource:

Bonnot, Christine (1987). ‘To particule de rappel et de thématisation’, Les Particules Énonciatives en Russe Contemporain 2: 113–171.Find this resource:

Borer, Hagit (1984). Parametric Syntax: Case Studies in Semitic and Romance Languages. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Find this resource:

Börjars, Kersti, Elisabeth Engdahl, and Maia Andréasson (2003). ‘Subject and Object Positions in Swedish’, In Butt, Miriam and Tracy Holloway King (eds), Proceedings of the LFG03 Conference, CSLI Publications, 43–58.Find this resource:

Bornkessel, Ina and Matthias Schlesewsky (2006a). ‘The Extended Argument Dependency Model: A Neurocognitive Approach to Sentence Comprehension across Languages’, Psychological Review 113 (4): 787–821.Find this resource:

Bornkessel, Ina and Matthias Schlesewsky (2006b). ‘The Role of Contrast in the Local Licensing of Scrambling in German: Evidence from Online Comprehension’, Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 18: 1–43.Find this resource:

Bornkessel, Ina, Matthias Schlesewsky, and Angela D. Friederici (2002). ‘Grammar overrides frequency: Evidence from the online processing of flexible word order’, Cognition 85: B21–B30.Find this resource:

Bornkessel, Ina et al. (2004). ‘Multi-dimensional Contributions to Garden Path Strength: Dissociating Phrase Structure from Case Marking’, Journal of Memory and Language 51: 495–522.Find this resource:

Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina (2003). ‘Contextual Information Modulates Initial Processes of Syntactic Integration: The Role of Inter- vs. Intra-sentential Predictions’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 29: 269–298.Find this resource:

Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina (2009). ‘The Role of Prominence Information in the Real Time Comprehension of Transitive Constructions: A Cross-linguistic Approach’, Language and Linguistics Compass 3: 19–58.Find this resource:

(p. 849) Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina (2014). ‘Competition in Argument Interpretation: Evidence from the Neurobiology of Language’, in B. MacWhinney, A. Malchukov, and E. Moravcsik (eds), Competing Motivations in Grammar and Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 107–26.Find this resource:

Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina and Matthias Schlesewsky (2009). Processing Syntax and Morphology: A Neurocognitive Perspective, Oxford Surveys in Syntax and Morphology 6, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina and Matthias Schlesewsky (2013). ‘Reconciling Time, Space and Function: A New Dorsal-ventral Stream Model of Sentence Comprehension’, Brain and Language 125: 60–76.Find this resource:

Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina and Matthias Schlesewsky (to appear). ‘The Argument Dependency Model’, in G. S. Hickok and S. L. Small (eds), Neurobiology of Language. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Find this resource:

Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina et al. (2011). ‘Think Globally: Cross-linguistic Variation in Electrophysiological Activity During Sentence Comprehension’, Brain and Language 117: 133–152.Find this resource:

Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina, Tanja Grewe, and Matthias Schlesewsky (2012). ‘Prominence vs. Aboutness in Sequencing: A Functional Distinction within the Left Inferior Frontal Gyrus’, Brain and Language 120: 96–107.Find this resource:

Bos, Heleen (1995). ‘Pronoun Copy in Sign Language of the Netherlands’, in H. Bos and T. Schermer (eds), Sign Language Research 1994: Proceedings of the Fourth European Congress on Sign Language Research. Hamburg: Signum, 121–147.Find this resource:

Bosch, Peter (1988). ‘Representing and Accessing Focussed Referents’, Language and Cognitive Processes 3: 207–231.Find this resource:

Bošković, Željko (2001). On the Nature of the Syntax–Phonology Interface. Cliticization and Related Phenomena. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Find this resource:

Bošković, Željko (2002). ‘On multiple wh-fronting’, Linguistic Inquiry 33 (3): 351–383.Find this resource:

Bošković, Željko (2009). ‘Scrambling’, in S. Kempgen, P. Kosta, T. Berger, and K. Gutschmidt (eds), Die Slavischen Sprachen / The Slavic Languages: Halbband 1 (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft). Berlin: De Gruyter, 714–725.Find this resource:

Bosse, Solveig, Benjamin Bruening, and Masahiro Yamada (2012). ‘Affected Experiencers’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30: 1185–1230.Find this resource:

Bostoen, Koen and Léon Mundeke (2011). ‘Passiveness and Inversion in Mbuun (Bantu B87, DRC)’, Studies in Language 35: 72–111.Find this resource:

Botinis, Antonis, Stella Ganetsou, Madga Griva, and Hara Bizani (2004). ‘Prosodic Phrasing and Syntactic Structure in Greek’, in Proceedings of Fonetic 2004, Stockholm, 96–99.Find this resource:

Bouma, Gerlof and Helen de Hoop (2008). ‘Unscrambled Pronouns in Dutch’, Linguistic Inquiry 39: 669–677.Find this resource:

Bouma, Gerlof, Lilja Øvrelid, and Jonas Kuhn (2010). ‘Towards a Large Parallel Corpus of Cleft Constructions’, in Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-2010). Valletta, Malta, 3585–3592.Find this resource:

Brandt, Margareta, Marga Reis, Inger Rosengren, and Ilse Zimmermann (1992). ‘Satztyp, Satzmodus und Illokution’, in I. Rosengren. (ed.), Satz und Illokution I. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1–90.Find this resource:

Brandt-Kobele, Oda-Christina and Barbara Höhle (2010). ‘What Asymmetries within Comprehension Reveal about Asymmetries between Comprehension and Production: The Case of Verb Inflection in Language Acquisition’, Lingua 120: 1910–1925.Find this resource:

(p. 850) Brants, Sabine, Stefanie Dipper, Silvia Hansen, Wolfgang Lezius, and George Smith (2002). ‘The TIGER Treebank’, in Proceedings of the Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories, 20–21 September (TLT02). Sozopol, Bulgaria, 24–42.Find this resource:

Brassai, Sámuel (1860, 1863–65). ‘A magyar mondat [The Hungarian Sentence]’, Magyar Akadémiai Értesítő. A Nyelv- és Széptudományi Osztály Közlönye 1: 279–399, 3: 3–128, 173–409.Find this resource:

Braun, Bettina (2005). Production and Perception of Thematic Contrast in German. Oxford: Peter Lang.Find this resource:

Braun, Bettina (2006). ‘Phonetics and Phonology of Thematic Contrast in German’, Language and Speech 49 (4): 451–493.Find this resource:

Braun, Bettina and David R. Ladd (2003). ‘Prosodic Correlates of Contrastive and Non-contrastive Themes in German’, in Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology. Geneva, Switzerland, 789–792.Find this resource:

Braun, Bettina and Lara Tagliapietra (2010). The role of contrastive intonation contours in the retrieval of contextual alternatives. Language and Cognitive Processes 25 (7): 1024–1043.Find this resource:

Brauße, Ursula (1991). ‘Kategorisierung von Partikeln. Nicht-propositionales nicht oder Modalpartikel?’ Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 44: 439–453.Find this resource:

Breckle, Margit and Heike Zinsmeister (2012). ‘A Corpus-Based Contrastive Analysis of Local Coherence in L1 and L2 German’, in V. Karabalić, M. A. Varga, and L. Pon (eds), Discourse and Dialogue. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 235–250.Find this resource:

Breen, Mara, Evelina Fedorenko, Matthew Wagner, and Edward Gibson (2010). ‘Acoustic Correlates of Information Structure’, Language and Cognitive Processes 25 (7): 1044–1098.Find this resource:

Brenier, Jason M, Ani Nenkova, Anubha Kothari, Laura Whitton, David Beaver, and Dan Jurafsky (2006). The (Non) Utility of Linguistic Features for Predicting Prominence in Spontaneous Speech, in Spoken Language Technology Workshop, 2006. IEEE, 54–57.Find this resource:

Brentano, Franz (1874). Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkte. Duncker & Humblot.Find this resource:

Bresnan, Joan (1971). ‘Sentence Stress and Syntactic Transformations’, Linguistic Inquiry 47: 257–281.Find this resource:

Bresnan, Joan (1974). ‘On the Position of Certain Clause-Particles in Phrase Structure’, Linguistic Inquiry 4: 614–619.Find this resource:

Bresnan, Joan (1997). ‘The Emergence of the Unmarked Pronoun: Chicheŵa Pronominals in Optimality Theory’, in Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Special Session on Syntax and Semantics in Africa. Berkeley University, California: Linguistic Society of America, 22–46.Find this resource:

Bresnan, Joan and Jonni M. Kanerva (1989). ‘Locative Inversion in Chichewa: A Case Study of Factorization in Grammar’, Linguistic Inquiry 20: 1–50.Find this resource:

Bresnan, Joan, and Samuel A. Mchombo (1987). ‘Topic, Pronoun, and Agreement in Chicheŵa’, Language 63: 741–782.Find this resource:

Bresnan, Joan and Tatiana Nikitina (2008). ‘Gradience and the Dative Alternation’, in Linda Uyechi and Lian-Hee We (eds), Reality Exploration and Discovery: Pattern Interaction in Language and Life. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 1–23.Find this resource:

Bródy, Mihály (1990). ‘Some Remarks on the Focus Field in Hungarian’, UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 2. London: University College London, 201–225.Find this resource:

Bródy, Mihály (1995). ‘Focus and Checking Theory’, in István Kenesei (ed.), Approaches to Hungarian 5. Szeged: JATE, 29–44.Find this resource:

(p. 851) Broekhuis, Hans (2008). Derivations and Evaluations: Object Shift in the Germanic Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Brouwer, Harm and John J. C. Hoeks (2013). ‘A Time and Place for Language Comprehension: Mapping the N400 and the P600 to a minimal cortical network’, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7.Find this resource:

Brown, Gillian (1983). ‘Prosodic Structure and the Given/New Distinction’, in A. Cutler and D. R. Ladd (eds) Prosody: Models and Measurements. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 67–77.Find this resource:

Brown-Schmidt, Sarah and Michael K. Tanenhaus (2008). ‘Real-time Investigation of Referential Domains in Unscripted Conversation: A Targeted Language Game Approach’, Cognitive Science 32 (4): 643–684.Find this resource:

Bruce, Gösta (1977). Swedish Word Accents in Sentence Perspective. Lund: Liber Läromedel.Find this resource:

Bruce, Gösta (1998). Allmän Och Svensk Prosodi. Praktisk Lingvistik 16. Lund: Institutionen för Lingvistik, Lunds Universitet.Find this resource:

Bruce, Gösta (2005). ‘Intonational Prominence in Swedish Revisited’, in S.-A. Jun (ed.), Prosodic Typology—The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 410–429.Find this resource:

Bruce, Gösta (2007). ‘Components of a Prosodic Typology of Swedish Intonation’, in T. Riad and C. Gussenhoven (eds), Tones and Tunes vol 1.—Typological Studies in Word and Sentence Prosody. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 114–145.Find this resource:

Bruce, Gösta and Eva Gårding (1978). ‘A Prosodic Typology for Swedish Dialects’, in E. Gårding, G. Bruce, and R. Bannert (eds), Nordic Prosody: Papers from a Symposium. Department of Linguistics and Phonetics, Lund University, 219–229.Find this resource:

Brunelle, Marc, Kiều Phương Hạ, and Martine Grice (2012). ‘Intonation in Northern Vietnamese’, The Linguistic Review 29: 3–36.Find this resource:

Brunetti, Lisa (2004). A Unification of Focus. Padova: Unipress.Find this resource:

Brunetti, Lisa (2009a). ‘Discourse Functions of Fronted Foci in Italian and Spanish’, in A. Dufter and D. Jacob (eds), Focus and Background in Romance Languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 43–82.Find this resource:

Brunetti, Lisa (2009b). ‘On Links and Tails in Italian’, Lingua 119 (5): 756–781.Find this resource:

Brunetti, Lisa, Mariapaola, D’Imperio, and Francesco, Cangemi (2010). ‘On the Prosodic Marking of Contrast in Romance Sentence Topic: Evidence from Neapolitan Italian’, Proceedings of 5th Speech Prosody Conference, May 2010, Chicago, 1–4.Find this resource:

Bryant, Doreen (2006). Koordinationsellipsen im Spracherwerb: Die Verarbeitung potentieller Gapping-Strukturen. PhD Dissertation, University of Tübingen.Find this resource:

Bryzgunova, Elena A. (1980). ‘Intonacija’, in N. J. Švedova (ed.), Russkaja grammatika. Tom 1. Moskva: Nauka.Find this resource:

Buell, Leston (2005). Issues in Zulu Verbal Morphosyntax. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Find this resource:

Buell, Leston (2006). ‘The Zulu Conjoint/Disjoint Verb Alternation: Focus or Constituency?’, ZAS Papers in Linguistics 43: 9–30.Find this resource:

Buell, Leston (2009). ‘Evaluating the Immediate Postverbal Position as a Focus Position in Zulu’, in Masangu Matondo et al. (eds), Selected Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference on African Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 166–172.Find this resource:

Büring, Daniel (1996a). ‘A Weak Theory of Strong Readings’, Proceedings of SALT VI. 1996, 17–34.Find this resource:

Büring, Daniel (1996b). On (de)accenting. Talk presented at the SFB 340 conference in Tübingen.Find this resource:

(p. 852) Büring, Daniel (1997a). ‘The Great Scope Inversion Conspiracy’, Linguistics & Philosophy 20: 175–194.Find this resource:

Büring, Daniel (1997b). The Meaning of Topic and Focus—The 59th Street Bridge Accent. London: Routledge.Find this resource:

Büring, Daniel (1997c). Towards an OT Account of German Mittelfeld Word Order. Ms. Universität Köln.Find this resource:

Büring, Daniel (1997d). The 49th Bridge Accent. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Büring, Daniel (1999). ‘Topic’, in P. Bosch and R. van der Sandt (eds), Focus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 142–165.Find this resource:

Büring, Daniel (2001). ‘What Do Definites Do That Indefinites Definitely Don’t?’, in Féry, C. and W. Sternefeld (eds) Audiatur Vox Sapentiae - A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow. (=studia grammatica 52). Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 70–100.Find this resource:

Büring, Daniel (2001). ‘Let’s Phrase It! Focus, Word Order, and Prosodic Phrasing in German’, in Gereon Müller and Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds), Competition in Syntax, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 69–105.Find this resource:

Büring, Daniel (2002). ‘What Do Definites Do That Indefinites Definitely Don’t?’ in Caroline Féry and Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds), Audiator Vox Sapientiae—A Festschrift for Arnim Von Stechow (Studia Grammatica 52). Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 70–100.Find this resource:

Büring, Daniel (2003). ‘On D-Trees, Beans, and B-Accents’. Linguistics & Philosophy 26 (5): 511–545.Find this resource:

Büring, Daniel (2004). ‘Focus suppositions’, Theoretical Linguistics 30: 65–76.Find this resource:

Büring, Daniel (2006a). ‘Focus Projection and Default Prominence’, in Valéria Molnár and Susanne Winkler (eds), The Architecture of Focus (Studies in Generative Grammar 82). Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter, 321–346.Find this resource:

Büring, Daniel (2006b). ‘Intonation und Informationsstruktur’, in H. Blühdorn, E. Breindl, and U. H. Waßner (eds), Text—Verstehen. Grammatik und darüber hinaus. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter, 144–163.Find this resource:

Büring, Daniel (2007). ‘Intonation, Semantics, and Information Structure’, in G. Ramchand and C. Reiss (eds), Interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Büring, Daniel (2008a). What’s New (and What’s Given) in the Theory of Focus? In Proceedings of BLS 34: 403–424.Find this resource:

Büring, Daniel (2008b). Been There, Marked That—A Theory of Second Occurrence Focus, Ms. http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/jJlMThlZ/buring.2008.2nd.occurrence.pdf, accessed 28 November 2012.

Büring, Daniel (2009). ‘Towards a Typology of Focus Realization’, in Malte Zimmermann and Caroline Féry (eds), Information Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 177–205.Find this resource:

Büring, Daniel (2012a). ‘What’s New (and What’s Given) in the Theory of focus?, in S. Berson et al. (eds), Proceedings of the Thirty-fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley, CA, 403–424.Find this resource:

Büring, Daniel (2012b). ‘Predicate Integration: Phrase Structure or Argument Structure?’, in Ivona Kučerová and Ad Neeleman (ed.), Information Structure: Contrasts and Positions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 27–47.Find this resource:

Büring, Daniel (2015). ‘A Theory of Second Occurrence Focus’, Language Cognition and Neurosceince 30 (1–2): 73–87.Find this resource:

Büring, Daniel and Rodrigo Gutiérrez-Bravo (2001). ‘Focus-related Word Order Variation Without the NSR. A Prosody-based Crosslinguistic Analysis’, in Séamas Mac Bloscaidh (ed.), Syntax at Santa Cruz 3. Santa Cruz: ICSC, 41–58.Find this resource:

Büring, Daniel and Katharina Hartmann (2001). ‘The Syntax and Semantics of Focus-sensitive Particles in German’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 229–281.Find this resource:

(p. 853) Burholt Kristensen, Line et al. (2013). ‘The Influence of Context on Word Order Processing–An fMRI Study’, Journal of Neurolinguistics 26 (1): 73–88.Find this resource:

Burkhardt, Petra (2006). ‘Inferential Bridging Relations Reveal Distinct Neural Mechanisms: Evidence from Event-related Brain Potentials’, Brain and Language 98: 159–168.Find this resource:

Bußmann, Hadumod (2008). Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft. 4th edn. Stuttgart: Kröner.Find this resource:

Byarushengo, Ernest R., Larry M. Hyman, and Sarah Tenenbaum (1976). ‘Tone, Accent, and Assertion in Haya’, in Larry M. Hyman (ed.), Studies in Bantu Tonology (Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics 3), 183–205.Find this resource:

Byram Washburn, Mary (2013). Narrowing the Focus: Experimental studies on exhaustivity and contrast. PhD dissertation, University of Southern California.Find this resource:

Cable, Seth (2010). The Grammar of Q: Q-particles, wh-movement, and pied-piping. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Cahill, Aoife and Riester, Arndt (2012). ‘Automatically Acquiring Fine-Grained Information Status Distinctions in German’, in Proceedings of the 13th Annual SIGdial Meeting on Discourse and Dialogue. Seoul, 232–36.Find this resource:

Calhoun, Sasha (2006). Information Structure and the Prosodic Structure of English: A Probabilistic Relationship. PhD thesis. University of Edinburgh.Find this resource:

Calhoun, Sasha (2010). ‘The Centrality of Metrical Structure in Signaling Information Structure’, Language 86(1): 1–42.Find this resource:

Campbell, Aimee L., Patricia Brooks, and Michael Tomasello (2000). ‘Factors Affecting Young Children’s Use of Pronouns as Referring Expressions’, Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 43: 1337–1349.Find this resource:

Cao, Xuân Hạo (1992). ‘Some Preliminaries to the Syntactic Analysis of the Vietnamese Sentence’, Mon-Khmer Studies 20: 137–151.Find this resource:

Caponigro, Ivano and Davidson, Kathryn (2011). ‘Ask, and Tell as Well: Clausal Question–Answer Pairs in ASL’, Natural Language Semantics 19(4): 323–371.Find this resource:

Cardinaletti, Anna (2001). ‘A Second Thought on Emarginazione: Destressing vs. “Right Dislocation”’, in G. Cinque and G. Salvie (eds), Current Studies in Italian Syntax. Essays Offered to Lorenzo Renzi. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 117–135.Find this resource:

Cardinaletti, Anna (2002). ‘Against Optional and Null Clitics. Right Dislocation vs. Marginalization’, Studia Linguistica 56: 29–57.Find this resource:

Carletta, Jean (1996). ‘Assessing Agreement on Classification Tasks: The Kappa Statistic’, Computational Linguistics 22(2): 249–254.Find this resource:

Carletta, Jean, Stefan Evert, Ulrich Heid, Jonathan Kilgour, Judy Robertson, and Holger Voormann (2003). ‘The NITE XML Toolkit: Flexible Annotation for Multi-modal Language Data’, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 35(3): 353–363.Find this resource:

Carlson, Greg (1977). Reference to Kinds in English. PhD dissertation, MIT.Find this resource:

Carlson, Greg N. (1989). ‘The Semantic Composition of English Generic Sentences’, in Gennaro Chierchia, Barbara Partee, and Raymond Turner (eds), Properties, types and meaning. Kluwer, 167–192.Find this resource:

Carlson, Katy (2001). ‘The Effects of Parallelism and Prosody in the Processing of Gapping Structures’, Language and Speech 44(1): 1–26.Find this resource:

Carlson, Katy (2013). ‘The Role of Only in Contrasts In and Out of Context’, Discourse Processes 50(4): 249–275.Find this resource:

Carlson, Katy, Michael W. Dickey, Lyn Frazier, and Charles Clifton Jr. (2009). ‘Information structure expectations in sentence comprehension’, The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 62(1): 114–139.Find this resource:

(p. 854) Carlson, Lauri W. (1985). Dialogue Games: An Approach to Discourse Analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Find this resource:

Carrol, John B. (1958). ‘Processes and content in psycholinguistics’, in Robert Patton (ed.), Current Trends in the Description and Analysis of Behavior. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 175–200.Find this resource:

Carston, Robyn (2002). Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.Find this resource:

Carter, Hazel (1962). Notes on the Tonal System of Northern Rhodesian Plateau Tonga (Colonial Research Study 35). London: Colonial Office.Find this resource:

Carton, Fernand, Daniel Hirst, Alain Marchal, and André Séguinot (1976). L’accent d’insistance. Studia Phonetica 12. Montréal: Didier.Find this resource:

Cecchetto, Carlo (1999). ‘A Comparative Analysis of Left and Right Dislocation in Romance’, Studia Linguistica 53: 40–67.Find this resource:

Cecchetto, Carlo (2000). ‘Doubling Structures and Reconstruction’, Probus 12: 93–126.Find this resource:

Chafe, Wallace (1974). ‘Language and Consciousness’, Language 50(1): 111–133.Find this resource:

Chafe, Wallace L. (1976). ‘Givenness, Contrastiveness, Definiteness, Subjects, Topics, and Point of View’, in Charles Li (ed.), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, 25–56.Find this resource:

Chafe, Wallace (1987). ‘Cognitive Constraints on Information Flow’, in R. Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 21–51.Find this resource:

Chao, Wynn (1988). On Ellipsis. New York/London: Garland.Find this resource:

Chao, Yuen (1968). A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.Find this resource:

Chen, Aoju (2009). ‘The Phonetics of Sentence-Initial Topic and Focus in Adult and Child Dutch’, in M. Vigário, S. Frota, and M. J. Freitas (eds), Phonetics and Phonology: Interactions and Interrelations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 91–106.Find this resource:

Chen, Aoju (2011). ‘Tuning Information Packaging: Intonational Realization of Topic and Focus in Child Dutch’, Journal of Child Language 38: 1055–83.Find this resource:

Chen, Aoju, Els Den Os, and Jan Peter De Ruiter (2007). ‘Pitch accent Type Matters for Online Processing of Information Status: Evidence from Natural and Synthetic Speech’, The Linguistic Review 24(2): 317—344.Find this resource:

Chen, Lijing, Xingshan Li, and Yufang Yang (2012). ‘Focus, Newness, and their Combination: Processing of Information Structure in Discourse’, PLOS One, 7(8), e42533.Find this resource:

Chen, Lijing J., Lin Wang, and Yufang F. Yang (2014). ‘Distinguish between Focus and Newness: An ERP Study’, Journal of Neurolinguistics 31, 28–41.Find this resource:

Chen, Matthew Y. (1987). ‘The Syntax of Xiamen Tone Sandhi’, Phonology Yearbook 4: 109–149.Find this resource:

Chen, Matthew (2000). Tone Sandhi. Patterns across Chinese dialects. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Chen, Ping (1996). ‘Pragmatic Interpretation of Structural Topic and Relativization in Chinese’, Journal of Pragmatics 26: 389–406.Find this resource:

Chen, Szu-wei, Bei Wang, and Yi Xu (2009). ‘Closely Related Languages, Different Ways of Realizing Focus’, Proceedings of Interspeech 2009. Brighton, England: Casual Productions.Find this resource:

Chen, Yiya Y. (2003). The Phonetics and Phonology of Contrastive Focus in Standard Chinese. PhD dissertation. Stony Brook: Stony Brook University.Find this resource:

Chen, Yiya (2004). ‘Focus and Intonational Phrase Boundary in Standard Chinese’, Proccedings of International Symposium on Chinese Spoken Language Processing.Find this resource:

Chen, Yiya (2006). ‘Durational Adjustment under Corrective Focus in Standard Chinese’, Journal of Phonetics 34: 176–201.Find this resource:

(p. 855) Chen, Yiya (2008a). ‘The Acoustic Realization of Vowels of Shanghai Chinese’, Journal of Phonetics 36: 629–648.Find this resource:

Chen, Yiya (2008b). ‘Prosodic Realization of Focus on verbal Phrases In Two Chinese Dialects’, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 123(5): 3889.Find this resource:

Chen, Yiya (2009). ‘Prosody and Information Structure Mapping: Evidence from Shanghai Chinese’, Chinese Journal of Phonetics 2: 123–133.Find this resource:

Chen, Yiya (2010). ‘Post-focus f0 Compression—Now you see it, now you don’t’, Journal of Phonetics 38: 517–525.Find this resource:

Chen, Yiya and Bettina Braun (2006a). ‘Prosodic Realization in Information Structure Categories in Standard Chinese’, in R. Hoffmann and H. Mixdorff (eds), Speech Prosody 2006. Dresden: TUD Press.Find this resource:

Chen, Yiya and Bettina Braun (2006b). ‘The Prosodic Categories of Information Structure’, Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2006. Dresden, Germany.Find this resource:

Chen, Yiya and Carlos Gussenhoven (2008). ‘Emphasis and Tonal Implementation in Standard Chinese’, Journal of Phonetics 36: 724–746.Find this resource:

Cheng, Lisa (2008). ‘Deconstructing the shi … de Construction’, The Linguistic Review 25: 235–266.Find this resource:

Cheng, Lisa L.-S. and Laura J. Downing (2007). ‘The Prosody and Syntax of Zulu Relative Clauses’, SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics: Bantu in Bloomsbury 15: 52–63.Find this resource:

Cheng, Lisa L.-S. and Laura J. Downing (2009). ‘Where’s the Topic in Zulu?’, in H. de Hoop and G. van Bergen (eds), Special Issue on Topics Cross-linguistically, The Linguistic Review 26: 207–238.Find this resource:

Cheng, Lisa L.-S. and Laura J. Downing (2012). ‘Against FocusP: Evidence from Durban Zulu’, in Ivona Kučerová and Ad Neeleman (eds), Contrasts and Positions in Information Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 247–266.Find this resource:

Chereches, Anca (2014). The pragmatics and prosody of focused some in a corpus of spontaneous speech. Manuscript, Cornell University.Find this resource:

Chiarcos, Christian, Ines Fiedler, Mira Grubic, Andreas Haida, Katharina Hartmann, Julia Ritz, Anne Schwarz, Amir Zeldes, and Malte Zimmermann (2011). ‘Information Structure in African Languages: Corpora and Tools’, Language Resources and Evaluation 45(3): 361–374.Find this resource:

Chierchia, Gennaro (1995). Dynamics of Meaning. Anaphora, Presupposition, and the Theory of Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Find this resource:

Chierchia, Gennaro (2004). ‘Scalar Implicatures, Polarity Phenomena, and the Syntax–Pragmatics Interface’, in A. Belletti (ed.), Structures and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 39–103.Find this resource:

Chierchia, Gennaro (2006). ‘Broaden Your Views: Implicatures of Domain Widening and the “Logicality” of Language’, Linguistic Inquiry Fall 2006 37(4): 535–590.Find this resource:

Chierchia, Gennaro (2013). Logic in Grammar: Polarity, Free Choice, and Intervention. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Chierchia, Gennaro, Danny Fox and Benjamin Spector (2011). ‘The Grammatical View of Scalar Implicatures and the Relationship between Semantics and Pragmatics’, in C. Maienborn, P. Portner, and K. von Heusinger (eds), Handbook of Semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Chinchor, Nancy (2001). Message Understanding Conference (MUC) 7. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Find this resource:

Chinchor, Nancy and Beth Sundheim (2003). Message Understanding Conference (MUC) 6. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Find this resource:

(p. 856) Cho, Taehong and James McQueen. (2005). ‘Prosodic Influences on Consonant Production in Dutch: Effects of Prosodic Boundaries, Phrasal Accent and Lexical Stress’, Journal of Phonetics 33(2): 121–157.Find this resource:

Chocano, Gema (2012). ‘On the fronting of non-contrastive topics in Germanic’, in Ester Torrego (ed.). Of Grammar, Words, and Verses. In honor of Carlos Piera. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 143–169.Find this resource:

Choi, Hye-Won (1999). Optimizing Structure in Context: Scrambling and Information Structure. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Find this resource:

Choi, Hye-Won (2001). ‘Binding and Discourse Prominence: Reconstruction in Focus Scrambling’, in Geraldine Legendre, Jane Grimshaw, and Sten Vikner (eds) Optimality-Theoretic Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 143–169.Find this resource:

Choi, Hye-Won (2008). ‘Beyond Grammatical Weight: A Corpus Study of Information Structure Effect on Dative-Accusative Order in Korean’, Discourse and Cognition 15: 127–152.Find this resource:

Choi, Hye-Won (2009). ‘Ordering a Left-Branching Language: Heaviness vs. Givenness’, Korean Society for Language and Information 13: 39–56.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam (1965). Aspects of a Theory of Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam (1970). ‘Deep Structure, Surface Structure and Semantic Interpretation’, in R. Jakobson and S. Kawamoto (eds), Studies in General and Oriental Linguistics. Tokyo: T.E.C. Corporation.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam (1971). ‘Deep Structure, Surface Structure and Semantic Interpretation’, in D. Steinberg and L. Jakobovits (eds), Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 183–216.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam A. (1972). ‘Deep Structure, Surface Structure, and Semantic Interpretation’, in Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar. The Hague: Mouton, 62–119.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam (1977). ‘On Wh-movement’, in P. W. Culicover (ed.), Formal Syntax. New York: Academic Press, 71–132.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam (1993). A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory, in Ken Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1–52.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam (1995a). Categories and Transformations, in Noam Chomsky, The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 219–394.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam (1995b). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam (2000). ‘Minimalist Inquiries: the Framework’, in Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka (eds), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 89–155.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam (2001). ‘Derivation by Phase’, in M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale. A Life in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1–52.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam (2004). ‘Beyond Explanatory Adequacy’, in Adriana Belletti (ed.), Structures and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 104–131.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam (2008). ‘On Phases’, in Robert Freidin, Carlos Peregrín Otero, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory. Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 133–166.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam and Morris Halle (1968). The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper Row.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam and Howard Lasnik (1993). ‘The Theory of Principles and Parameters’, in J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld, and T. Vennemann (eds), Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 506–569.Find this resource:

(p. 857) Choudhury, Arunima and Elsi Kaiser (2012). ‘Prosodic Focus in Bangla: A Psycholinguistic Investigation of Production and Perception. LSA Meeting Extended Abstracts 2012. http://elanguage.net/journals/lsameeting/article/view/2881.

Choudhury, Arunima and Elsi Kaiser (to appear). ‘Interaction between Prosody and Focus Types: Evidence from Bangla and Hindi.’, to appear in S. Sundaresan and R. Balusu (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Formal Approaches to South Asian Languages Workshop (FASAL 5).Find this resource:

Chu, Chauncey (2003). ‘Please, Let Topic and Focus Co-exist Peacefully!’, in 徐烈炯, 劉丹青 (主編), 話題與焦點新論. 上海: 上海教育出版社, 260–280.Find this resource:

Chung, Hye-Yoon (2012). Two Types of Focus in Castilian Spanish. PhD thesis. The University of Texas at Austin.Find this resource:

Chung, Sandra (2013). ‘Syntactic Identity in Sluicing: How Much and Why’, Linguistic Inquiry 44(1): 1–44.Find this resource:

Chung, Sandra, William A. Ladusaw, and James McCloskey (1995). ‘Sluicing and Logical Form’, Natural Language Semantics 3: 239–282.Find this resource:

Cinque, Guglielmo (1977). ‘The Movement Nature of Left Dislocation’, Linguistic Inquiry 8: 397–411.Find this resource:

Cinque, Guglielmo (1983/1997). ‘“Topic” Constructions in Some European Languages and “Connectedness”’, in Elena Anagnostopoulou, Henk van Riemsdijk, and Frans Zwarts (eds), Materials on Left Dislocation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 93–118.Find this resource:

Cinque, Guglielmo (1990). Types of A′ dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Cinque, Guglielmo (1993). ‘A Null Theory of Phrase and Compound Stress’, Linguistic Inquiry 24: 239–298.Find this resource:

Cinque, Guglielmo (1994). ‘On the Evidence for Partial N-movement in the Romance DP’, in G. Cinque, J. Koster, J. Y. Pollock, R. Zanuttini, and L. Rizzi (eds), Paths Towards Universal Grammar: Essays in Honor of Richard S. Kayne, Georgetown University Press, 85–110.Find this resource:

Cinque, Guglielmo (1999). Adverbs and Functional Heads (Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Cinque, Guglielmo and Luigi Rizzi (2008). ‘The Cartography of Syntactic Structures’, Studies in Linguistics 2: 42–58.Find this resource:

Clark, Eve V. and Patricia Matos Amaral (2010). ‘Children Build on Pragmatic Information in Language Acquisition’, Language and Linguistics Compass 4: 445–457.Find this resource:

Clark, Herbert (1975). ‘Bridging’, in R. Schank and B. Nash-Webber (eds), Theoretical Issues in Natural-Language Processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 169–174.Find this resource:

Clark, Herbert H. (1977). ‘Bridging’, Proceedings of the 1975 Workshop on Theoretical issues in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, 169–174.Find this resource:

Clark, Herbert H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Clark, Herbert H. and Eve Clark (1977). Psychology and Language: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Find this resource:

Clark, Herbert H. and Susan Haviland (1977). ‘Comprehension and the Given‐New Contrast’, in R. O. Freedle (ed.), Discourse Production and Comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1–40.Find this resource:

Clark, Marybeth (1992). ‘Conjunction as Topicalizer in Vietnamese’, Mon-Khmer Studies 20: 91–110.Find this resource:

Clark, Marybeth (1996). ‘Conjunction as Copula in Vietnamese’, Mon-Khmer Studies 26: 319–331.Find this resource:

Clifton, Charles and Lyn Frazier (2004). ‘Should Given Information Come before New? Yes and No’, Memory and Cognition 32(6): 886–895.Find this resource:

Clifton, Charles and Maria Slowiaczek (1981). ‘Integrating New Information with Old Knowledge’, Memory & Cognition 9(2): 142–148.Find this resource:

(p. 858) Clifton, Charles, Jeannine Bock, and Janina Rado (2000). ‘Effects of the Focus Particle only and Intrinsic Contrast on Comprehension of Reduced Relative Clauses’, in A. Kennedy, R. Radach, D. Heller, and J. Pynte (eds), Reading as a Perceptual Process. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 591–619.Find this resource:

Clifton, Charles Jr., Adrian Staub, and Keith Rayner (2007). ‘Eye Movements in reading Words and Sentences’, in R. van Gompel (ed.), Eye Movements: A Window on Mind and Brain. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 341–372.Find this resource:

Coerts, Jane (1992). Nonmanual Grammatical Markers: An Analysis of Interrogatives, Negations and Topicalisations in Sign Language of the Netherlands. PhD Dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Find this resource:

Cognola, Federica (2013). ‘The Mixed OV/VO Syntax of Mocheno Main Clauses: On the Interaction between High and Low Left Periphery’, in Theresa Biberauer and Michelle Sheehan (eds) Theoretical Approaches to Disharmonic Word Orders. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 106–135.Find this resource:

Cohen, Ariel (1999). ‘How are Alternatives Computed?’ Journal of Semantics 16: 43–65.Find this resource:

Cohen, Ariel (2001). ‘Relative Readings of Many, Often and Generics’, Natural Language Semantics 9: 41–67.Find this resource:

Cohen, Ariel (2009). ‘No Alternative to Alternatives’, Journal of Semantics 26: 1–48.Find this resource:

Cohen, Ariel and Nomi Erteschik-Shir (2002). ‘Topic, Focus, and the Interpretation of Bare Plurals’, Natural Language Semantics 10: 125–165.Find this resource:

Cohen, Ariel and Manfred Krifka (2011). ‘Superlative Quantifiers as Modifiers of Meta-speech Acts’, The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication 6: 1–56.Find this resource:

Collins, Chris and Komlan E. Essizewa (2007). ‘The Syntax of Verb Focus in Kabiye’, in D. L. Payne and J. Peña (eds), Selected Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference on African Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 191–203.Find this resource:

Collins, Peter (1995). ‘The Indirect Object Construction in English: An Informational Approach’, Linguistics 33: 35–49.Find this resource:

Colonna, Saveria, Sarah Schimke, and Barbara Hemforth (2012). ‘Information Structure Effects on Anaphora Resolution in German and French: A Crosslinguistic Study of Pronoun Resolution’, Linguistics 50(5): 991 –1013.Find this resource:

Coniglio, Marco (2005). Deutsche Modalpartikeln: eine syntaktische Analyse. MA thesis, Università Ca’ Foscari di Venezia.Find this resource:

Coniglio, Marco (2011). Die Syntax der deutschen Modalpartikeln: Ihre Distribution und Lizenzierung in Haupt- und Nebensätzen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Find this resource:

Constant, Noah (2006). English Rise–Fall–Rise: A study in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Intonation. Master’s thesis, UC Santa Cruz.Find this resource:

Constant, Noah (2012a). ‘English rise–fall–rise: A Study in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Intonation’, Linguistics & Philosophy 35(5): 407–442.Find this resource:

Constant, Noah (2012b). ‘Topic Abstraction as the Source for Nested Alternatives: A Conservative Semantics for Contrastive Topic’, In WCCFL 30. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, 120–130.Find this resource:

Constant, Noah (2014). Contrastive Topic: Meanings and Realizations. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Find this resource:

Cook, Philippa and Felix Bildhauer (2011). ‘Annotating Information Structure. The Case of “Topic”’, in S. Dipper and H. Zinsmeister (eds), Beyond Semantics. Corpus-based Investigations of Pragmatic and Discourse Phenomena (Bochumer Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 3). Bochum: Ruhr-Universität Bochum, 45–56.Find this resource:

(p. 859) Cooper, Roger M. (1974). ‘The Control of Eye Fixation by the Meaning of Spoken Language: A New Methodology for the Real-time Investigation of Speech Perception, Memory, and Language Processing’, Cognitive Psychology 6: 84–107.Find this resource:

Cooper, William E. and John Robert Ross (1975). ‘World order’, in R. E. Grossman, L. James San, and T. J. Vance (eds), CLS Proceedings Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 63–111.Find this resource:

Cooper, William E., Stephen J. Eady and Pamela R. Mueller (1985). ‘Acoustical Aspects of Contrastive Stress in Question–Answer Contexts’, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 77(6): 2142–2156.Find this resource:

Coppock, Elizabeth (2001). ‘Gapping: In Defense of Deletion’, in M. Andronis, Ch. Ball, H. Elston, and S. Neuvel (eds), Chicago Linguistics Society, Volume 37. University of Chicago, 133–148.Find this resource:

Coppock, Elizabeth and David Beaver (2012). ‘Exclusive Updates’, in Logic, Language and Meaning. Berlin: Springer, 291–300.Find this resource:

Corbetta, Maurizio and Gordon L. Shulman (2002). ‘Control of Goal-directed and Stimulus-driven Attention in the Brain’, Nature Reviews Neuroscience 3(3): 201–215.Find this resource:

Cornilescu, Alexandra (2000). ‘The Double Subject Construction in Romanian’, in V. Motapanyane (ed.), Comparative Studies in Romanian Syntax, Oxford: Elsevier, 83–134.Find this resource:

Cornilescu, Alexandra (2004). ‘Direct Object Movement and the Structure of the Romanian Left Periphery’, in M. Coene, G. De Cuyper, and Y. D’Hulst (eds), Antwerp Papers in Linguistics (APiL) 7: 141–166.Find this resource:

Cornilescu, Alexandra and Alexandru Nicolae (2012). ‘Nominal Ellipsis as Definiteness and Anaphoricity: The Case of Romanian’, Lingua 122: 1070–1111.Find this resource:

Corver, Norbert and Marjo van Koppen (2009). ‘Let’s Focus on NP-ellipsis’, GAGL (Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik) 48, 3–26 (http://Gagl.eldoc.ub.rug.nl).Find this resource:

Corver, Norbert and Marjo van Koppen (2010). ‘Ellipsis in Dutch Possessive Noun Phrases: A Micro-comparative Approach’, Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 13: 99–140.Find this resource:

Corver, Norbert and Marjo van Koppen (2011). ‘NP-ellipsis with Adjectival Remnants: A Micro-comparative Perspective’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29: 371–421.Find this resource:

Costa, João (1998). Word Order Variation: A Constraint-Based Approach. PhD Dissertation, HIL/Leiden University.Find this resource:

Costa, João (2001). ‘The Emergence of Unmarked Word Order’, in Geraldine Legendre, Jane Grimshaw, and Sten Vikner (eds), Optimality-Theoretic Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 171–203.Find this resource:

Costa, João (2004). Subject Positions and Interfaces: The Case of European Portuguese. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Costa, João and Nancy C. Kula (2008). ‘Focus at the Interface: Evidence from Romance and Bantu’, in Ceclie de Cat and Katherine Demuth (eds) The Bantu-Romance Connection: A Comparative Investigation of Verbal Agreement, DPs, and Information Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 293–322.Find this resource:

Costa, João and Ana M. Martins (2011). ‘On Focus Movement in European Portuguese’, Probus 23: 217–245.Find this resource:

Costa, João and Kriszta Szendrői (2006). ‘Acquisition of Focus Marking in European Portuguese—Evidence for a Unified Approach to Focus’, in V. Torrens, and L. Escobar (eds), The Acquisition of Syntax in Romance Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 319–329.Find this resource:

Coulson, S., J. W. King, and M. Kutas (1998). ‘Expect the Unexpected: Event-related Brain Response to Morphosyntactic Violations’, Language and Cognitive Processes 13: 21–58.Find this resource:

(p. 860) Coustenoble, Hélène and Lilias Armstrong (1937). Studies in French Intonation. Cambridge: Heffer.Find this resource:

Cowles, Heidi W. (2003). Processing Information Structure: Evidence from Comprehension and Production. PhD Dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Find this resource:

Cowles, Heidi W., et al. (2007). ‘Violations of Information Structure: An Electrophysiological Study of Answers to wh-questions’, Brain and Language 102(3): 228–242.Find this resource:

Cowles, H. Wind and Victor S. Ferreira (2011). ‘The Influence of Topic Status on Written and Spoken Sentence Production’, Discourse Processes 49: 1–28.Find this resource:

Cowles, Heidi W., Matthew Walenski, and Robert Kluender (2007). ‘Linguistic and Cognitive Prominence in Anaphor Resolution: Topic, Constrastive Focus and Pronouns’, Topoi 26: 3–18.Find this resource:

Craenenbroeck, Jeroen van (ed.) (2009). Alternatives to Cartography. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Craenenbroeck, Jeroen van (2010). The Syntax of Ellipsis: Evidence from Dutch dialects. New York: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Craenenbroeck, Jeroen van and Anikó Lipták (2006). ‘The Crosslinguistic Syntax of Sluicing: Evidence from Hungarian relatives’, Syntax 9: 248–274.Find this resource:

Craenenbroeck, Jeroen van and Anikó Lipták (2013). ‘What Sluicing Can Do, What it Can’t and in Which Language: On the Cross-linguistic Syntax of Ellipsis’, in L. Cheng and N. Corver (eds), Diagnosing Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 502–536.Find this resource:

Craenenbroeck, Jeroen van and Jason Merchant (2013). ‘Ellipsis Phenomena’, in M. den Dikken (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 701–745.Find this resource:

Craenenbroeck, Jeroen van and Liliane Haegeman (2007). ‘The Derivation of Subject-initial V2.’ Linguistic Inquiry 38(1): 167–178.Find this resource:

Crain, Stephen and Rosalind Thornton (1998). Investigations in Universal Grammar: A Guide to Research on the Acquisition of Syntax and Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Crain, Stephen, William Philip, Kenneth F. Drozd, Thomas Roeper, and Kazumi Matsuoka (1992). Only in child language. Unpublished Manuscript, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.Find this resource:

Crain, Stephen, Weijia Ni, and Laura Conway (1994). ‘Learning, Parsing and Modularity’, in C. Clifton, L. Frazier, and K. Rayner (eds), Perspectives on Sentence Processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 443–467.Find this resource:

Crasborn, Onno, and Van der Kooij, Els (2013). ‘The Phonology of Focus in Sign Language of the Netherlands’, Journal of Linguistics 49(3): 515–565.Find this resource:

Crasborn, Onno, Van der Kooij, Els, Ros, Johan, and De Hoop, Helen (2009). ‘Topic Agreement in NGT (Sign Language of the Netherlands)’, The Linguistic Review 26: 355–370.Find this resource:

Creissels, Denis (1996a). ‘Conjunctive and Disjunctive Verb Forms in Setswana’. SAJAL 16: 109–114.Find this resource:

Creissels, Denis (1996b). ‘La Tonalité des Finales Verbales et la Distinction Entre Formes Verbales Conjointes et Formes Verbales Disjointes en Tswana’, Africana Linguistica XI. Tervuren: Musée Royal de l’Afrique Centrale, 27–47.Find this resource:

Creissels, Denis (2004). Non-canonical Applicatives and Focalization in Tswana. Paper presented at the conference on the Syntax of the World’s Languages (SWL 1), Leipzig, 5–8 August 2004.Find this resource:

Creissels, Denis (2012). Conjoint and Disjoint Verb Forms in Tswana and Other Bantu Languages. Ms., Université de Lyon 2.Find this resource:

(p. 861) Cresti, Diana (1995). Indefinite Topics. PhD thesis, MIT.Find this resource:

Crnič, Luka (2011). Getting Even. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Find this resource:

Cruschina, Silvio (2009). ‘The Syntactic Role of Discourse-related Features’, Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 5: 15–30.Find this resource:

Cruschina, Silvio (2012). Discourse-Related Features and Functional Projections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Cruschina, Silvio (2016). ‘Information and Discourse Structure’, in A. Ledgeway and M. Maiden (eds), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Cruttenden, Alan (1985). ‘Intonation Comprehension in Ten-Year-Olds’, Journal of Child Language 12: 643–661.Find this resource:

Cruttenden, Alan (1997). Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Cruttenden, Alan (2006). ‘The De-accenting of Given Information: A Cognitive Universal?’ in G. Bernini and M. Schwartz (eds), Pragmatic Organization of Discourse in the Languages of Europe. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter, 311–356.Find this resource:

Cruz-Ferreira, Madalena (1998). ‘Intonation in European Portuguese’, in Daniel Hirst and Albert Di Cristo (eds), Intonation Patterns: A Survey of Twenty Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 167–178.Find this resource:

Culicover, Peter (1991). ‘Topicalization, Inversion and Complementizers in English’, in Denis Delfitto, Martin Everaert, Arnold Evers, and Frits Stuurman (eds), Going Romance and Beyond. Utrecht: University of Utrecht, 1–45.Find this resource:

Culicover, Peter W. and Ray Jackendoff (2005). Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University.Find this resource:

Culicover, Peter W. and Ray Jackendoff (2012). ‘Same-except: A Domain-general Cognitive Relation and How Language Expresses it’, Language 88(2): 305–340.Find this resource:

Culicover, Peter and Michael Rochemont (1983). ‘Stress and Focus in English’. Language 59: 123–165.Find this resource:

Culicover, Peter W. and Susanne Winkler (2008). ‘English Focus Inversion’, Journal of Linguistics 44(3): 625–658.Find this resource:

Curio, Gabriel, et al. (2000). ‘Speaking Modifies Voice‐evoked Activity in the Human Auditory Cortex’, Human Brain Mapping 9(4): 183–191.Find this resource:

Cutler, Anne and David Swinney (1987). ‘Prosody and the Development of Comprehension’, Journal of Child Language 14(1), 145–167.Find this resource:

Daeleman, Jan (1983). ‘Tone-Groups and Tone-Cases in a Bantu Tone-Language’, ITL: Review of Applied Linguistics 60(61): 131–141.Find this resource:

Dahan, Delphine, Michael K. Tanenhaus, and Craig G. Chambers (2002). ‘Accent and Reference Resolution in Spoken-language Comprehension’, Journal of Memory and Language 47(2): 292–314.Find this resource:

Daneš, František (1960). ‘Sentence Intonation from a Functional Point of View’, Word 16 (1): 34–54.Find this resource:

Daneš, František (1964). ‘A Three-Level Approach to Syntax’, Travaux linguistiques de Prague 1: 225–240.Find this resource:

Daneš, František (1970), ‘One Instane of the Prague School Methodology: Functional Analysis of Utterance and Text’, in Method and Theory in Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton.Find this resource:

Daneš, František (1974a). ‘Functional Sentence Perspective and the Organization of the Text’, in František Daneš (ed.), Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective. Prague and The Hague, Paris: Academia and Mouton, 106–128.Find this resource:

Daneš, František (1974b). ‘Zur Terminologie der FSP‘, in František Daneš (ed.), Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective. Prague and The Hague, Paris: Academia, Mouton, 2017–2222.Find this resource:

(p. 862) Davidson, Donald (1963). ‘Actions, Reasons, and Causes’, The Journal of Philosophy 60(23): 685–700.Find this resource:

Davidson, Donald (2000). ‘A Coherence Theory of Truth and Knowlegde’, in E. Sosa and J. Kim (eds), Epistemology. An Anthology. Malden, Oxford, and Carlton: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 154–163.Find this resource:

Davis, Christopher, Christopher Potts, and Margaret Speas (2007). ‘The Pragmatic Value of Evidential Sentences’, in Proceedings of SALT 17, 71–88.Find this resource:

De Cat, Cécile (2007a). French Dislocations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

De Cat, Cécile (2007b). ‘French Dislocation without Movement’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25: 485–534.Find this resource:

De Cat, Cécile (2009). ‘Experimental Evidence for Preschoolers’ Mastery of “Topic”0’, Language Acquisition 16: 224–239.Find this resource:

Deguchi, Masanori and Yoshihisa Kitagawa (2002). ’Prosody and wh-questions’, in Proceedings of NELS 32, GLSA, University of Massachusetts, 73–92.Find this resource:

De Hoop, Helen (1992). Case Configuration and Noun Phrase Interpretation. PhD Dissertation, University of Groningen.Find this resource:

De Hoop, Helen and J. Solà (1996). ‘Determiners, Context Sets, and Focus’, WCCFL 14: 155–167.Find this resource:

De Korte, Siebe (2008). Dutch Topic Drop as a PF Phenomenon. MA thesis, Universiteit van Amsterdam.Find this resource:

De Kuthy, Kordula and Detmar Meurers (2012). ‘Focus Projection between Theory and Evidence’, in S. Featherston and B. Stolterfoth (eds), Empirical Approaches to Linguistic Theory—Studies in Meaning and Structure. Berlin: De Gruyter, 207–240.Find this resource:

De Long, Katherine A., Thomas P. Urbach, and Marta Kutas (2005). ‘Probabilistic Word Pre-activation during Language Comprehension Inferred from Electrical Brain Activity’, Nature Neuroscience 8: 1117–1121.Find this resource:

De Marneffe, Marie-Catherine, Scott Grimm, Inbal Arnon, Susannah Kirby, and Joan Bresnan (2012). ‘A Statistical Model of the Grammatical Choices in Child Production of Dative Sentences’, Language and Cognitive Processes 27: 25–61.Find this resource:

De Ruiter, Laura (2010). Studies on Intonation and Information Structure in Child and Adult German. Doctoral dissertation, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen.Find this resource:

van Deemter, Kees (1994). ‘What’s new? A Semantic Perspective on Sentence Accent’, Journal of Semantics 11: 1–31.Find this resource:

van Deemter, Kees and Rodger Kibble (2000). ‘On Coreferring: Coreference in MUC and Related Annotation Schemes’, Computational Linguistics 26(4): 629–637.Find this resource:

Dehé, Nicole (2004). ‘On the Order of Objects in Icelandic Double Object Constructions’, UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 16: 85–108.Find this resource:

Dehé, Nicole (2005). ‘The Optimal Placement of up and Ab—A Comparison’, Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 8: 185–224.Find this resource:

Dehé, Nicole (2009). ‘An Intonational Grammar for Icelandic.’ Nordic Journal of Linguistics 32: 5–34.Find this resource:

Dehé, Nicole (2010). ‘The Nature and Use of Icelandic Prenuclear and Nuclear Pitch Accents: Evidence from F0 Alignment and Syllable/Segment Duration’, Nordic Journal of Linguistics 33: 31–65.Find this resource:

Dekker, Paul and Herman Hendriks (1996). ‘Links Without Locations—Information Packaging and Non-Monotone Anaphora’, in Paul Dekker and Martin Stokhof (eds), Proceedings of the Tenth Amsterdam Colloquium, 339–58.Find this resource:

(p. 863) Delais-Roussaire, Elisabeth, Jenny Doetjes, and Petra Sleeman (2004). ‘Dislocation’, in Farncis Corblin and Henriette de Swart (eds), Handbook of French Semantics, Palo Alto: CSLI Publications, 505–530.Find this resource:

Delin, Judy (1989). Cleft Constructions in Discourse. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh.Find this resource:

Demiral, Şükrü Barış, Matthias Schlesewsky, and Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky (2008). ‘On the Universality of Language Comprehension Strategies: Evidence from Turkish’, Cognition 106: 484–500.Find this resource:

Demuth, Katherine (1989). ‘Maturation and the Acquisition of the Sesotho Passive’, Language 65: 56–80.Find this resource:

Depiante, Marcela A. (2000). The Syntax of Deep and Surface Anaphora: A Study of Null Complement Anaphora and Stripping/Bare Argument Ellipsis. PhD Dissertation, University of Connecticut.Find this resource:

Derose, Keith, and Richard E. Grandy (1999). ‘Conditional Assertions and “Biscuit” Conditionals’, Noûs 33: 405–420.Find this resource:

Destruel, Emilie (2012). ‘The French c’est-Cleft: An Empirical Study on Its Meaning and Use’, in C. Piñon (ed.), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 9.Find this resource:

Deuchar, Margaret (1983). ‘Is BSL an SVO Language?’, in J. Kyle, and B. Woll (eds), Language in Sign. London: Croom Helm, 69–76.Find this resource:

Di Cristo, Albert (1998). ‘Intonation in French’, in H. Daniel and A. Di Cristo (eds), Intonation Systems: A Survey of Twenty Languages, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 195–218.Find this resource:

Diesing, Molly (1992a). ‘Bare Plural Subjects and the Derivation of Logical Representations’, Linguistic Inquiry 23(3): 353–380.Find this resource:

Diesing, Molly (1992b). Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Diesing, Molly (1997). ‘Yiddish VO Order and the Typology of Object Movement in Germanic’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15: 369–427.Find this resource:

Diesing, Molly and Eloise Jelinek (1995). ‘Distributing Arguments’, Natural Language Semantics 3: 123–176.Find this resource:

Dik, Simon C., Marie E. Hoffman, Jan R. de Jong, Sie Ing Djiang, Harry Stroomer, and Lourens de Vries (1981). ‘On the Typology of Focus Phenomena’, in T. Hoekstra, H. van der Hulst, and M. Moortgat (eds), Perspektives on Functional Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris Publications, 41–74.Find this resource:

den Dikken, Marcel (2006). Relators and Linkers: The Syntax of Predication, Predicate Inversion, and Copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Dikker, Suzanne, Hugh Rabagliati, and Liina Pylkkänen, (2009). ‘Sensitivity to Syntax in Visual Cortex’, Cognition 110 (3): 293–321.Find this resource:

Dikker, Suzanne, et al. (2010). ‘Early Occipital Sensitivity to Syntactic Category is Based on Form Typicality’, Psychological Science, 21: 629–634.Find this resource:

Dimitrova, Diana V., et al. (2012). ‘Less is Not More: Neural Responses to Missing and Superfluous Accents in Context’, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 24 (12): 2400–2418.Find this resource:

Dimmendaal, Gerrit (1995). ‘Metatony in Benue-Congo: Some Further Evidence for an Original Augment’, in E. ’Nolue Emenanjo and Ozo-mekuri Ndimele (eds), Issues in African Languages and Linguistics. Aba: NINLAN, 30–38.Find this resource:

D’Imperio, Mariapaola and Barbara Gili Fivela (2003). ‘How Many Levels of Phrasing? Evidence from Two Varieties of Italian’, in J. Local, R. Ogden, and R. Temple (eds), Phonetic Interpretation, Papers in Laboratory Phonology VI. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 130–131.Find this resource:

D’Imperio, Mariapaola, Gorka Elordieta, Sonia Frota, Pilar Prieto, and Marina Vigário. (2005). ‘Intonational Phrasing in Romance: The Role of Syntactic and Prosodic Structure’, in S. Frota, M. Vigário, and M. J. Freitas (eds), Prosodies. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 59–98.Find this resource:

(p. 864) Dimroth, Christine (2002). ‘Topics, Assertions, and Additive Words: How L2 learners get from Information Structure to Target-language Syntax’, Linguistics 40(4): 891–923.Find this resource:

Dimroth, Christine and Wolfgang Klein (1996). ‘Fokuspartikeln in Lernervarietäten. Ein Analyserahmen und einige Beispiele’, Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik (LiLi) 104: 73–114.Find this resource:

Dimroth, Christine and Bhuvana Narasimhan (2012). ‘The Development of Linear Ordering Preferences in Child Language: The Influence of Accessibility and Topicality’, Language Acquisition 19: 313–323.Find this resource:

Dipper, Stefanie (2005). ‘XML-based Stand-off Representation and Exploitation of Multi-Level Linguistic Annotation’, in Proceedings of Berliner XML Tage 2005 (BXML 2005). Berlin, Germany, 39–50.Find this resource:

Dipper, Stefanie, Michael Götze, and Stavros Skopeteas (eds) (2007). ‘Information Structure in Cross-Linguistic Corpora: Annotation Guidelines for Phonology, Morphology, Syntax, Semantics, and Information Structure’, Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 7, special issue.Find this resource:

Dittmar, Miriam, Kirsten Abbot-Smith, Elena Lieven, and Michael Tomasello (2008). ‘German Children’s Comprehension of Word Order and Case Marking in Causative Sentences’, Child Development 79: 1152–1167.Find this resource:

Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen (1994). The Syntax of Romanian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Doetjes, Jenny, E. Delais-Roussarie, and P. Sleeman (2002). ‘The Prosody of Left Detached Constituents in French’, in Speech Prosody 2002, International Conference.Find this resource:

Dogil, Grzegorz (1980). ‘Focus Marking in Polish’, Linguistic Analysis 6(3): 221–245.Find this resource:

Doherty, Monika (1987). Epistemic Meaning. Berlin: Springer.Find this resource:

Doke, Clement M. (1961). Textbook of Zulu Grammar. 6th edn. Cape Town: Longmans South Africa.Find this resource:

Downing, Laura J. (2003). ‘Stress, Tone and Focus in Chichewa and Xhosa’, in R.-J. Anyanwu (ed.), Stress and Tone: The African Experience. Franfurter Afrikanistische Blätter 15. Köln: Köppe, 59–81.Find this resource:

Downing, Laura J. (2006). ‘The Prosody and Syntax of Focus in Chitumbuka’, in Papers in Bantu Grammar and Description (ZAS Papers in Linguistics 43). Berlin: ZAS, 55–79.Find this resource:

Downing, Laura J. (2008). ‘Focus and Prominence in Chichewa, Chitumbuka, and Durban Zulu’, ZAS Papers in Linguistics (ZSPiL) 49: 47–65.Find this resource:

Downing, Laura J. (2011). ‘The Prosody of “Dislocation” in Selected Bantu Languages’, Lingua 121: 772–786.Find this resource:

Downing, Laura J. (2012). ‘On the (Non-)congruence of Focus and Prominence in Tumbuka’, in Nikki Adams, Michael Marlo, Tristan Purvis, and Michelle Morrison (eds), Selected Proceedings of ACAL 42. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 122–133.Find this resource:

Downing, Laura J. and Bernd Pompino-Marschall (2013). ‘The Focus Prosody of Chichewa and the Stress–Focus Constraint: A Response to Samek-Lodovici (2005)’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31: 647–681.Find this resource:

Downing, Laura J., Al Mtenje, and Bernd Pompino-Marschall, (2004). ‘Prosody and Information Structure in Chichewa’, ZAS Papers in Linguistics 37: 167–186.Find this resource:

Drachman, Gaberell and Angeliki Malikouti-Drachman (1999). ‘Greek Word Accent’, in H. van der Hulst (ed.), Word Prosodic Systems in the Languages of Europe. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 897–945.Find this resource:

Drenhaus, Heiner, Malte Zimmermann, and Shravan Vasishth (2011). ‘Exhaustiveness Effects in Clefts are not Truth-functional’, Journal of Neurolinguistics, 24: 320–337.Find this resource:

Dretske, Fred (1972). ‘Contrastive Statements’, Philosophical Review 411–437.Find this resource:

(p. 865) Dröge, Alexander, Laura Maffongelli, and Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky (2014). ‘Luigi piace a Laura? Electrophysiological Evidence for Thematic Reanalysis with Italian Dative Object Experiencer Verbs’, in A. Bachran, I. Roy, and L. Stockall (eds), Structuring the Argument. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 83–118.Find this resource:

Drozd, Kenneth F. and Erik van Loosbroek (1998). Dutch Children’s Interpretation of Focus Particle Constructions. Poster presented at the 23rd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Boston, MA.Find this resource:

Drubig, Hans Bernhard (2003). ‘Toward a Typology of Focus and Focus Constructions’, Linguistics 41: 1–50.Find this resource:

Dryer, Matthew (1996). ‘Focus, Pragmatic Presupposition, and Activated Propositions’, Journal of Pragmatics 26: 475–523.Find this resource:

Dryer, Matthew S. (1980). ‘The Positional Tendencies of Sentential Noun Phrases in Universal Grammar’, Canadian Journal of Linguistics 25: 123–195.Find this resource:

Du Bois, John W. (1987). ‘The Discourse Basis of Ergativity’, Language 63(4): 805–855.Find this resource:

Duchowski, Andrew T. (2007). Eye Tracking Methodology: Theory and Practice. 2nd edn. London: Springer-Verlag.Find this resource:

Dummett, Michael (1973). Frege: Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Duckworth.Find this resource:

Duranti, Alessandro and Ernest Rugwa Byarushengo (1977). ‘On the Notion of “Direct Object” ’, in Ernest Rugwa Byarushengo, Alessandro Duranti, and Larry M. Hyman (eds), Haya Grammatical Structure (Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics 6). Los Angeles: University of Southern California, 45–71.Find this resource:

Dvořák, Boštjan (2003). ‘Elliptische Prädikatisierung enklitischer Personalpronomina im Slowenischen’, Philologie im Netz 26: 37–61.Find this resource:

Dvořák, Boštjan and Remus Gergel (2004). ‘Slovenian Clitics: VP ellipsis in yes/no Questions and Beyond’, in I. Comorovski and M. Krifka (eds), Proceedings: Workshop on the Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics of Questions. 85–91.Find this resource:

Dyakonova, Marina (2009). A Phase-based Approach to Russian Free Word Order. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam.Find this resource:

É. Kiss, Katalin (1977). ‘Topic and Focus in Hungarian Syntax’, Montreal Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 1–42.Find this resource:

É. Kiss, Katalin (1987). Configurationality in Hungarian. Dordrecht: Foris.Find this resource:

É. Kiss, Katalin (1991). ‘Logical Structure in Syntactic Structure: The Case of Hungarian’, in J. Huang and R. May (eds), Logical Structure and Syntactic Structure. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy. Dordrecht: Reidel, 111–148.Find this resource:

É. Kiss, Katalin (1995). Discourse Configurational Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

É. Kiss, Katalin (1995a). Discourse Configurational Languages: Introduction, in Katalin É. Kiss (ed.) Discourse Configurational Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3–27.Find this resource:

É. Kiss, Katalin (1998a). ‘Identificational Focus versus Information Focus’, Language 74: 245–273.Find this resource:

É. Kiss, Katalin (1998b). ‘Multiple Topic, One Focus?’ Acta Linguistica Hungarica 45: 3–30.Find this resource:

É. Kiss, Katalin (2002). The Syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

É. Kiss, Katalin (2006). ‘Focussing as Predication’, in Valéria Molnár and Susanne Winkler (eds), Architecture of Focus. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 169–196.Find this resource:

É. Kiss, Katalin (2008). ‘A Pioneering Theory of Information Structure’, Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55: 23–40.Find this resource:

(p. 866) É. Kiss, Katalin (2010). ‘Structural Focus and Exhaustivity’, in Malte Zimmermann and Caroline Féry (eds), Information Structure. Theoretical, Typological and Experimental Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 64–88.Find this resource:

É. Kiss, Katalin (2012). ‘Grammaticalized Backgrounding’, in Johan Brandtler, David Håkansson, Stefan Huber, and Eva Klingvall (eds), Discourse and Grammar. A Festschrift in Honor of Valéria Molnár. Lund: Centre for Languages and Literature.Find this resource:

É. Kiss, Katalin and Beáta Gyuris (2003). ‘Apparent Scope Inversion Under the Rise Fall Contour’, Acta Linguistica Hungarica 50(3–4): 371–404.Find this resource:

É. Kiss, Katalin and Ferenc Kiefer (eds) (1994). The Syntactic Structure of Hungarian. Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 27. San Diego, New York: Academic Press.Find this resource:

Eady, Stephen J., William Cooper, V. Klouda Gayle, Pamela R. Mueller, and D. W. Lotts (1986). ‘Acoustical Characteristics of Sentential Focus: Narrow vs. Broad Focus and Single vs. Dual Focus Environments’, Language and Speech 29: 233–251.Find this resource:

Ebert, Cornelia (2009). Quantificational topics: A scopal treatment of Exceptional Wide Scope Phenomena. Berlin: Springer.Find this resource:

Eckart, Kerstin, Arndt Riester, and Katrin Schweitzer (2012). ‘A Discourse Information Radio News Database for Linguistic Analysis’, in C. Chiarcos, S. Nordhoff, and S. Hellmann (eds), Linked Data in Linguistics. Representing and Connecting Language Data and Language Metadata. Heidelberg: Springer, 65–76.Find this resource:

Eckardt, Regine (1999). ‘Focus with Nominal Quantifiers’, in Peter Bosch and Rob van der Sandt (eds), Focus. Linguistic, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 166–186.Find this resource:

Eckardt, Regine (2001). ‘Reanalysing selbst’, Natural Language Semantics, 9: 371–412.Find this resource:

Eckardt, Regine (2002). ‘Semantic Change in Grammaticalization’, in Graham Katz (ed.), Proceeding of Sinn und Bedeutung 6. Osnabrück.Find this resource:

Eckardt, Regine (2006). Meaning Change in Grammaticalization. An Enquiry into Semantic Reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Eckardt, Regine (2007a). ‘Licensing “or” ’, in U. Sauerland and P. Stateva (eds), Presupposition and Implicature in Compositional Semantics. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 34–70.Find this resource:

Eckardt, Regine (2007b). ‘Inherent Focus on Wh-Phrases’, in E. Puig-Waldmüller (ed.), Proceedings of SuB 11. Universitat Pompeu Fabra, 209–28. Online version available at http://mutis.upf.es/glif/pub/sub11/.Find this resource:

Eckardt, Regine (2009). ‘The Real, the Apparent, and What is eigentlich’, in Bergjlot Behrens and Catherine Fabricius Hansen (eds), Structuring Information in Discourse: The Explicit/Implicit Dimension, Oslo: University of Oslo, 1–32.Find this resource:

Eckardt, Regine (2013). Speaker commentary items. Talk at Congrès International des Linguistes, 21–27 July 2013, Geneva.Find this resource:

Eckardt, Regine and Eva Csipak (2013). ‘Minimizers—Towards a Pragmatic Theory of Licensing’, in Eva Csipak, Regine Eckardt, Mingya Liu, and Manfred Sailer (eds), Beyond ‘any’ and ‘ever’. Berlin: Mouton deGruyter.Find this resource:

Eckart, Kerstin, Arndt Riester, and Katrin Schweitzer (2012). ‘A Discourse Information Radio News Database for Linguistic Analysis’, in C. Chiarcos, S. Nordhoff, and S. Hellmann (eds), Linked Data in Linguistics. Berlin: Springer, 65–76.Find this resource:

Edmondson, Jerold A. and Frans Plank (1978). ‘Great Expectations: An intensive self analysis’, Linguistics and Philosophy, 2: 373–413.Find this resource:

Egg, Markus (2012). ‘Discourse Particles at the Semantics–Pragmatics Interface’, in W. Abraham and E. Leiss (eds), Modality and Theory of Mind Elements across Languages. Berlin: de Gruyter, 297–333.Find this resource:

(p. 867) Egg, Markus and Malte Zimmermann (2012). ‘ “Stressed out!” Accented Discourse Particles. The Case of doch’, in Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 16: 225–238.Find this resource:

Eguren, Luis (2010). ‘Contrastive Focus and Nominal Ellipsis in Spanish’, Lingua 120: 435–457.Find this resource:

Eide, Kristin Melum (2011). ‘Norwegian (non-V2) Declaratives, Resumptives and the Wackernagel Position’, Nordic Journal of Linguistics 34: 174–213.Find this resource:

Eilam, Aviad (2011). Explorations in the Informational Component. PhD dissertation University of Pennsylvania.Find this resource:

El-Touny, Kariema (2011). ‘Optionality in Cairene Arabic Wh-questions Between the Minimalist Program and Optimality Theory’, in Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the Illinois Language and Linguistics Society (Studies in the Linguistic Sciences). Illinois Working Papers, 16–35.Find this resource:

Elbourne, Paul (2005). Situations and Individuals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Elfner, Emily (2011). ‘The Interaction of Linearization and Prosody. Evidence from Pronoun Postposing in Irish’, in Andrew Carnie (ed.), Formal Approaches to Celtic Linguistics. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 17–40.Find this resource:

Elfner, Emily (2012). Syntax–Prosody Interactions in Irish. PhD Dissertation, Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Find this resource:

Elordieta, Arantzazu (2001). Verb Movement and Consituent Permutation in Basque. Doctoral Dissertation, Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics/Leiden University, Leiden.Find this resource:

Elordieta, Arantzazu (2002). ‘On the (Im)possibility of Prosodic Focus Marking in Embedded Contexts in Northern Bizkaian Basque’, in Xabier Artiagoitia, Patxi Goenaga, and Joseba Andoni Lakarra (ed.), Erramu Boneta: Festschrift For Rudolf P. G. De Rijk. Bilbao: Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea, 153–177.Find this resource:

Elordieta, Gorka (2003). ‘Intonation’, in A grammar of Basque, (ed.) José Ignacio Hualde and Jon Ortiz de Urbina. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 72–112.Find this resource:

Elordieta, Gorka (2007). ‘Constraints on Intonational Prominence of Focalized Constituents’, in Chungmin Lee, Matthew Gordon, and Daniel Büring (ed.), Topic and Focus: Cross-linguistic Perspectives on Meaning and Intonation. Dordrecht: Springer, 1–22.Find this resource:

Elordieta, Gorka (2008). ‘An Overview of Theories of the Syntax–Phonology Interface’, Anuario Del Seminario De Filología Vasca Julio De Urquijo 42 (1).Find this resource:

Emslie, Hazel C. and Rosemary J. Stevenson (1981). ‘Pre-school Children’s Use of the Articles in Definite and Indefinite Referring Expressions’, Journal of Child Language 8: 313–328.Find this resource:

Endo, Mika (2004). ‘Developmental Issues on the Interpretation of Focus Particles by Japanese Children’, in A. Brugos, L. Micciulla, and C. E. Smith (eds), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 141–152.Find this resource:

Endriss, Cornelia (2009). Quantificational Topics—A Scopal Treatment of Exceptional Wide Scope Phenomena. Berlin: Springer.Find this resource:

Engdahl, Elisabet, Maia Andréasson, and Kersti Börjars (2003). ‘Word Order in the Swedish Midfield—an OT Approach’, in Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway-King (eds), Proceedings of the LFG 03 Conference. University at Albany, State University of New York: CSLI Publications, 43–58.Find this resource:

Engdahl, Elisabet and Filippa Lindahl (2014). ‘Preposed Object Pronouns in Mainland Scandinavian’, Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 92: 1–32.Find this resource:

Engelhardt, Paul E., Fernanda Ferreira, and Elena G. Patsenko (2010). ‘Pupillometry Reveals Processing Load during Spoken Language Comprehension’, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 63: 639–645.Find this resource:

(p. 868) Engels, Eva (2004). Adverb Placement. An Optimality Theoretic Approach. Doctoral Dissertation, Universität Potsdam.Find this resource:

Enkvist, Nils E. (1964). ‘On Defining Style’, in: J. W. Spencer (ed.). Linguistics and Style. London: Oxford University Press, 3–56.Find this resource:

Erdozia, Kepa, Itziar Laka, Anna Mestres-Misse, and Antoni Rodriguez-Fornells (2009). ‘Syntactic Complexity and Ambiguity Resolution in a Free Word Order Language: Behavioral and Electrophysiological Evidences from Basque’, Brain and Language 109: 1–17.Find this resource:

Erechko, Anna (2002). ‘Subject–Verb Inversion in Russian’, in Proceedings of the Eleventh Meeting of the Students of Linguistics in Europe (ConSOLE XI). University of Padua, Italy.Find this resource:

Erickson, Donna (2002). ‘Articulation of Extreme Formant Patterns for Emphasized Vowels’, Phonetica 59: 134–149.Find this resource:

Ernst, Thomas and Chengchi Wang (1995). ‘Object Preposing in Mandarin Chinese’, Journal of East Asian Linguistics 4: 235–260.Find this resource:

Erteschik-Shir, Nomi (1997). The Dynamics of Focus Structure. No. 84 in Cambridge Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Erteschik-Shir, Nomi (2005). ‘Sound Patterns of Syntax: Object Shift’, Theoretical Linguistics 31: 47–93.Find this resource:

Erteschik-Shir, Nomi (2006). ‘The Architecture of Topic and Focus’, in Valéria Molnár and Susanne Winkler (eds), The Architecture of Focus. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 33–58.Find this resource:

Erteschik-Shir, Nomi (2007). Information Structure: the Syntax–Discourse Interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Etxepare, Ricardo and Jon Ortiz de Urbina (2003). ‘Focalization’, in José Ignacio Hualde and Jon Ortiz de Urbina (eds), A Grammar of Basque. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 459–516.Find this resource:

Evans, Gareth (1977). ‘Pronouns, Quantifiers, and Relative Clauses (i)’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7:467–536.Find this resource:

Evans, Jonathan, Man-ni Chu, John Aston, nd Chao-yu Su (2010). ‘Linguistic and Human Effects on F0 in a Tonal Dialect of Qiang’, Phonetica 67: 82–99.Find this resource:

Fabb, Nigel and Morris Halle (2008). Meter in Poetry: A New Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Face, Timothy (2001). ‘Focus and Early Peak Alignment in Spanish Intonation’, Probus 13(2): 223–246.Find this resource:

Face, Timothy (2002a). ‘Local Intonational Marking of Spanish Contrastive Focus’, Probus 14(1): 71–92.Find this resource:

Face, Timothy (2002b). Intonational Marking of Contrastive Focus in Madrid Spanish. München: Lincom.Find this resource:

Face, Timothy L. and Maria D’Imperio (2005). ‘Reconsidering a focal typology: evidence from Spanish and Italian’, Italian Journal of Linguistics 17: 271–289.Find this resource:

Face, Timothy and Pilar Prieto (2007). ‘Rising Accents in Castilian Spanish: A Revision of sp_tobi’, Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 6(1): 117–146.Find this resource:

Fanselow, Gisbert (1988). ‘Aufspaltung von NPn und das Problem der “freien” Wortstellung’, Linguistische Berichte 114: 113.Find this resource:

Fanselow, Gisbert (1990). ‘Scrambling as NP Movement’, in Günther Grewendorf and Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds), Scrambling and Barriers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 113–140.Find this resource:

Fanselow, Gisbert (2000). ‘Optimal Exceptions’, in B. Stiebels and D. Wunderlich (eds), Lexicon in Focus. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 173–209.Find this resource:

(p. 869) Fanselow, Gisbert (2001). ‘Features, Θ-Roles, and Free Constituent Order’, Linguistic Inquiry 32(3): 405–438.Find this resource:

Fanselow, Gisbert (2002). ‘Quirky Subjects and Other Specifiers’, in Ingrid Kaufmann and Barbara Stiebels (eds) More than Words. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 227–250.Find this resource:

Fanselow, Gisbert (2003). ‘Free Constituent Order: A Minimalist Interface Account’, Folia Linguistica: 191–231.Find this resource:

Fanselow, Gisbert (2006). ‘On Pure Syntax (Uncontaminated by Information Structure)’, in P. Brandt and E. Fuss (eds), Form, Structure and Grammar. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 137–157.Find this resource:

Fanselow, Gisbert (2007). ‘The Restricted Access of Information Structure to Syntax—A Minority Report’, in F. Gisbert and M. Krifka (eds), The Notions of Information Structure. Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 6: 205–220.Find this resource:

Fanselow, Gisbert (2008). ‘In need of mediation. The relation between syntax and information structure’, Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55: 397–413.Find this resource:

Fanselow, Gisbert (2012). ‘Scrambling as Formal Movement’, in Ivona Kučerovà and Ad Neeleman (eds), Contrasts and Positions in Information Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 267–295.Find this resource:

Fanselow, Gisbert and Denisa Lenertová (2011). ‘Left Peripheral Focus: Mismatches Between Syntax and Information Structure’, Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29(1): 169–209.Find this resource:

Fanselow, Gisbert and Pawel Mecner (2014). ‘Vorangestellte Adverbien in Sätzen mit weitem Fokus im Jiddischen’, Vortrag, 17. Symposium für jiddische Studien in Deutschland, Düsseldorf.Find this resource:

Fanselow, Gisbert, Denisa Lenertová, and Thomas Weskott (2008). ‘Studies on the Acceptability of Object Movement to Spec, CP’, in A. Steube (ed.), The Discourse Potential of Underspecified Structures, vol. 8. Berlin: De Gruyter, 413–438.Find this resource:

Fant, Gunnar and Anita Kruckenberg (1995). ‘The Voice Source in Prosody’, in International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Stockholm, 622–625.Find this resource:

Fant, Gunnar and Anita Kruckenberg (2008). Multi-Level Analysis and Synthesis of Prosody with Applications to Swedish. Ms. Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan.Find this resource:

Fant, G., S. Hertegård and A. Kruckenberg (1996). ‘Focal Accent and Subglottal Pressure’, TMH-QPSR 2: 29–32.Find this resource:

Farkas, Donka and Kim Bruce (2010). ‘On Reacting to Assertions and Polar Questions’, Journal of Semantics 27: 81–118.Find this resource:

Farkas, Donka and Floris Roelofsen (2011). Polar Initiatives and Polarity Particles in an Inquisitive Discourse Model. Paper presented at Yale University. Available at https://sites.google.com/site/inquisitivesemantics/.

Fedorenko, Evelina, Steve, Piantadosi, and Edward, Gibson (2012). ‘Processing Relative Clauses in Supportive Contexts’, Cognitive Science 36(3): 471–497.Find this resource:

Fehrmann, Dorothee (2004). ‘Prosody in Contrast: Prosodic Distinction of Contrast and Correction Readings of Polish Adversative Coordinate Structures’, in A. Steube (ed.), Information Structure: Theoretical and Empirical Aspects. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 307–343.Find this resource:

Fehrmann, Dorothee (2008). ‘The Syntax of Contrast and Correction Readings of Polish Adversative Coordinate Structures’, in A. Steube (ed.), The Discourse Potential of Underspecified Structures, Vol. 8. Berlin: De Gruyter, 321–358.Find this resource:

Feldhausen, Ingo (2010). Sentential Form and Prosodic Structure in Catalan. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Feldhausen, Ingo (2012). Prosodic Aspects of Clitic Left Dislocation in Spanish. Unpublished manuscript, University of Frankfurt and Université Paris 3 Sorbonne Nouvelle.Find this resource:

(p. 870) Feldhausen, Ingo, Andrea Pešková, Elena Kireva, and Christoph Gabriel (2011). ‘Categorical perception of Porteño nuclear accents’, in Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences 2011, Hong Kong, 116–119.Find this resource:

Ferreira, Victor S. (1996). ‘Is it better to give than to donate? syntactic flexibility in language production’, Journal of Memory and Language 35: 724–755.Find this resource:

Ferreira, Victor S. and Gary S. Dell (2000). ‘Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production’, Cognitive Psychology 40: 296–340.Find this resource:

Ferreira, Victor S. and Hiromi Yoshita (2003). ‘Given-new Ordering Effects on the Production of Scrambled Sentences in Japanese’, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 32: 669–692.Find this resource:

Ferstl, Evelyn C. and D. Yves von Cramon (2001). ‘The Role of Coherence and Cohesion in Text Comprehension: An Event-related fMRI Study’, Cognitive Brain Research, 11: 325–340.Find this resource:

Ferstl, Evelyn C. and D. Yves von Cramon (2002). ‘What Does the Frontomedian Cortex Contribute to Language Comprehension: Coherence or Theory of Mind?’, NeuroImage 17: 1599–1612.Find this resource:

Ferstl, Evelyn C., et al. (2008). ‘The Extended Language Network: A Meta-analysis of Neuroimaging Studies on Text Comprehension’, Human Brain Mapping, 29(5): 581–593.Find this resource:

Féry, Caroline (1993). German Intonational Patterns. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Find this resource:

Féry, Caroline (2001). ‘Focus and Phrasing in French’, in C. Féry and W. Sternefeld (eds), Audiatur Vox Sapientiae: A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 153–181.Find this resource:

Féry, Caroline (2006). Wide Focus Object Fronting. Ms., University of Potsdam.Find this resource:

Féry, Caroline (2010). ‘Syntax, Information Structure, Embedded Prosodic Phrasing and the Relational Scaling of Pitch Accents’, in N. Erteschik-Shir and L. Rochman (eds), The Sound Patterns of Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 271–290.Find this resource:

Féry, Caroline (2011). ‘German Sentence Accents and Embedded Prosodic Phrases’, Lingua 121: 1906–1922.Find this resource:

Féry, Caroline (2013). ‘Focus as Prosodic Alignment’, Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 31(4).Find this resource:

Féry, Caroline and Katharina Hartmann (2005). ‘The Focus and Prosodic Structure of German Right Node Raising and Gapping’, The Linguistic Review 22(1): 69–116.Find this resource:

Féry, Caroline and Shinichiro Ishihara (2009). ‘The Phonology of Second Occurrence Focus’, Journal of Linguistics 45: 285–313.Find this resource:

Féry, Caroline and Shinichiro Ishihara (2010). ‘How focus and givenness shape prosody’, in Malte Zimmermann and Caroline Féry (eds), Information Structure: Theoretical, Typological, and Experimental Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 36–63.Find this resource:

Féry, Caroline and Frank Kügler (2008). ‘Pitch Accent Scaling on Given, New and Focused Constituents in German’, Journal of Phonetics 36: 680–703.Find this resource:

Féry, Caroline and Vieri Samek-Lodovici (2006). ‘Focus Projection and Prosodic Prominence in Nested Foci’, Language 82(1): 131–150.Find this resource:

Féry, Caroline and Hubert Truckenbrodt (2005). ‘Sisterhood and Tonal Scaling’, Studia Linguistica 59: 223–243.Find this resource:

Féry, Caroline, Alla Paslawska, and Gisbert Fanselow (2007). ‘Nominal Split Constructions in Ukrainian’, Journal of Slavic Linguistics 15(1): 3–48.Find this resource:

Féry, Caroline, Elsi Kaiser, Robin Hörnig, Thomas Weskott, and Reinhold Kliegl (2009). ‘Perception of Intonational Contours on Given and New Referents: A Completion Study (p. 871) and an Eye-movement Experiment’, in Paul Boersma and Silke Hamann (eds), Phonology in Perception. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, 235–266.Find this resource:

Féry Caroline, Robin Hörnig, and Serge Pahaut (2011). ‘Correlates of Phrasing in French and German from an Experiment with Semi-Spontaneous Speech’, in C. Gabriel and C. Lleó (eds) Intonational Phrasing in Romance and Germanic. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 11–41.Find this resource:

Fiedler, Ines and Anne Schwarz (2007). ‘Narrative Focus Strategies in Gur and Kwa?’, in E. O. Aboh, K. Hartmann, and M. Zimmermann (eds), Focus Strategies in African Languages. Berlin: Mouton, 267–286.Find this resource:

Fiedler, Ines, Katharina Hartmann, Brigitte Reinecke, Anne Schwarz, and Malte Zimmermann (2010). ‘Subject Focus in West African Languages’, in M. Zimmermann and C. Féry (eds), Information Structure. Theoretical, Typological, and Experimental Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 234–257.Find this resource:

Fiengo, Robert and Robert May (1992). Free and Bound Ellipsis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Find this resource:

Fiengo, Robert and Robert May (1994). Indices and Identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Fiengo, Robert and William McClure (2002). ‘On how to use -wa’, Journal of East Asian Linguistics 11: 5–41.Find this resource:

Filik, Ruth, Kevin B. Paterson, and Simon P. Liversedge (2005). ‘Parsing with Focus Particles in Context: Eye Movements during the Processing of Relative Clause Ambiguities’, Journal of Memory and Language, 53: 473–495.Find this resource:

Filik, Ruth, Kevin B. Paterson, and Antje Sauermann (2011). ‘The Influence of Focus on Eye Movements during Reading’, in S. Liversedge, I. Gilchrist, and S. Everling (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Eye Movements Oxford: Oxford University Press, 925–941.Find this resource:

von Fintel, Kai (1994). Restrictions on Quantifier Domains. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Find this resource:

von Fintel, Kai (2004). ‘A Minimal Theory of Adverbial Quantification’, in H. Kamp and B. Partee (eds), Context-dependence in the Analysis of Linguistic Meaning. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 137–175.Find this resource:

von Fintel, Kai (2008). ‘What is Presupposition Accommodation, again?’, Philosophical Perspectives 22.Find this resource:

von Fintel, Kai and Irene Heim (2008). Intensional Semantics. Lecture Notes, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Find this resource:

von Fintel, Kai and Lisa Matthewson (2008). ‘Universals in Semantics’, The Linguistic Review 25(1–2): 139–201.Find this resource:

Fintoft, Knut, Per Egil Mjaavatn, Einar Møllergård, and Brit Ulseth (1978). ‘Toneme Patterns in Norwegian Dialects’, in E. Gårding, G. Bruce, and R. Bannert (eds), Nordic Prosody. Papers from a Symposium. Travaux de l’Institut de Linguistique de Lund 13. Lund: Department of Linguistics, Lund University, 197–206.Find this resource:

Firbas, Jan (1964). ‘On Defining the Theme in Functional Sentence Perspective’, Travaux linguistiques de Prague 1: 267–280.Find this resource:

Firbas, Jan (1966). ‘Non-Thematic Subjects in Contemporary English’, Travaux Linguistiques de Prague 2: 239–256.Find this resource:

Firbas, Jan (1992). Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Fischer, Susan and Wynne Janis (1990). ‘Verb Sandwiches in American Sign Language’, in S. Prillwitz, and T. Vollhaber (eds), Current Trends in European Sign Language (p. 872) Research: Proceedings of the 3rd European Congress on Sign Language Research. Hamburg: Signum, 279–294.Find this resource:

Fodor, Janet D. (1998). ‘Learning to Parse?’, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 27(2): 285–319.Find this resource:

Fodor, Janet D. (2002). ‘Prosodic Disambiguation in Silent Reading’, in Proceedings of Nels, vol. 32, 113–132.Find this resource:

Foraker, Stefani and Brian McElree (2007). ‘The Role of Prominence in Pronoun Resolution: Active versus Passive Representations’, Journal of Memory and Language 56(3): 357–383.Find this resource:

Fowler, Carol A. and Jonathan Housum 1987. ‘Talkers’ Signaling of New and Old. Words in Speech and Listeners’ Perception and Use of the Distinction’, Journal of Memory and Language 26: 489–504.Find this resource:

Fox, Danny (1999). ‘Focus, Parallelism and Accommodation’, in T. Matthews and D. Strolovitch (eds), SALT IX, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 70–90.Find this resource:

Fox, Danny (2007). ‘Free Choice and the Theory of Scalar Implicatures’, in U. Sauerland and P. Stateva (eds), Presupposition and Implicature in Compositional Semantics, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 71–120.Find this resource:

Fox, Danny and Uli Sauerland (1997). ‘Illusive Scope of Universal Quantifiers’, in J. Beckman (ed.), Proceedings of NELS 26. GLSA, UMass Amherst.Find this resource:

Frajzyngier, Zygmunt and Erin Shay (2002). A Grammar of Hdi. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Franks, Steven (2005). ‘Slavic Languages’, in G. Cinque and R. S. Kayne (eds), Handbook of Comparative Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 373–419.Find this resource:

Franks, Steven and Tracy H. King (2000). A Handbook of Slavic Clitics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Frascarelli, Mara (2000). The Syntax–Phonology Interface in Focus and Topic Constructions in Italian. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Find this resource:

Frascarelli, Mara (2004). ‘Dislocation, Clitic Resumption and Minimality: A Comparative Analysis of Left and Right Topic Constructions in Italian’, in R. Bok-Bennema, B. Hollebrandse, B. Kampers-Manhe, and P. Sleeman (eds), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2002. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 99–118.Find this resource:

Frascarelli, Mara and Roland Hinterhölzl (2007). ‘Types of Topics in German and Italian’, in Susanne Winkler and Kerstin Schwabe (eds), On Information Structure, Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 87–116.Find this resource:

Fraundorf, Scott H., Duane G. Watson, and Aaron S. Benjamin (2010). ‘Recognition Memory Reveals just how CONTRASTIVE Contrastive Accenting really Is’, Journal of Memory and Language 63(3): 367–386.Find this resource:

Frazier, Lyn (1999). On Sentence Interpretation. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.Find this resource:

Frazier, Lyn and Giovanni B. Flores d’Arcais (1989). ‘Filler-driven Parsing: A Study of Gap-filling in Dutch’, Journal of Memory and Language 28: 331–334.Find this resource:

Frege, Gottlob (1892). ‘On Sense and Reference’, in P. Geach and M. Black (eds) (1952), Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege. Oxford: Blackwell, 56–78.Find this resource:

Frege, Gottlob (1897). Logic, unpublished ms., extract translated by P. Long and R. White, reprinted in M. Beaney (ed.) (1997), The Frege Reader. Oxford: Blackwell, 227–50.Find this resource:

Frege, Gottlob (1919/1956). ‘The Thought. A Logical Inquiry’, Mind 65(259): 289–311.Find this resource:

Frege, Gottlob (1919/1986). ‘Der Gedanke—Eine logische Untersuchung’, in Logische Untersuchungen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Find this resource:

Frege, Gottlob (1976). Nachgelassene Schriften und wissenschaftlicher Briefwechsel. Hamburg: Meiner.Find this resource:

(p. 873) Frege, Gottlob (2001). Schriften zur Logik und Sprachphilosophie. Aus dem Nachlass. Herausgegeben von Gottfried Gabriel. Hamburg: Meiner.Find this resource:

Fretheim, Thorstein (1987). ‘Pragmatics and Intonation’, In J. Verschueren and M. Bertuccelli-Papi (eds), The Pragmatic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 395–420.Find this resource:

Frey, Werner (1993). Syntaktische Bedingungen für die semantische Interpretation. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Find this resource:

Frey, Werner (2004a). ‘Notes on the Syntax and the Pragmatics of German Left Dislocation’, in Horst Lohnstein and Susanne Trissler (eds), The Syntax and Semantics of the Left Periphery. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 203–233.Find this resource:

Frey, Werner (2004b). ‘A Medial Topic Position for German’, Linguistische Berichte 198: 153–190.Find this resource:

Frey, Werner (2005a). ‘Pragmatic Properties of Certain English and German Left Peripheral Constructions’, Linguistics 43: 89–129.Find this resource:

Frey, Werner (2005b). ‘Zur Syntax der linken Peripherie im Deutschen.’, in Franz Josef d’Avis (ed.), Deutsche Syntax: Empirie und Theorie. Göteborg, 147–171.Find this resource:

Frey, Werner (2006a). ‘Contrast and movement to the German prefield’, in V. Molnár and S. Winkler (eds), The Architecture of Focus. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 235–264.Find this resource:

Frey, Werner (2006b). ‘How to Get an Object-es into the German Prefield’, in P. Brandt and E. Fuss (eds), Form, Structure, and Grammar: A Festschrift presented to Günther Grewendorf on occasion of his 60th birthday. Akademie Verlag, 159–185.Find this resource:

Frey, Werner (2010). ‘Ā-movement and conventional implicatures: About the grammatical encoding of emphasis in German’, Lingua 120(6): 1416–1435.Find this resource:

Friedman, Lynn A. (1976). ‘The Manifestation of Subject, Object, and Topic in the American Sign Language’, in C. N. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic, 125–148.Find this resource:

Frisch, Stefan, et al. (2002). ‘The P600 as an indicator of syntactic ambiguity’, Cognition, 85 B83–B92.Find this resource:

Frisch, Stefan, et al. (2003). ‘Why the P600 is not just a P300: the role of the basal ganglia’, Clinical Neurophysiology, 114: 336–340.Find this resource:

Frishberg, Nancy (1985). ‘Dominance Relations & Discourse Structures’, in W. Stokoe and V. Volterra (eds), SLR ‘83: Proceedings of the III. International Symposium on Sign Language Research. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press, 79–90.Find this resource:

Friston, Karl J. (2010). ‘The Free-energy Principle: A Unified Brain Theory?’, Nature Reviews Neuroscience 11: 127–138.Find this resource:

Friston, Karl, et al. (2012). ‘Perceptions as Hypotheses: Saccades as Experiments’, Frontiers in Psychology, 3.Find this resource:

Fromkin, Victoria A. (1971). ‘The Non-anomalous Nature of Anomalous Utterances’, Language 27–52.Find this resource:

Frota, Sónia (2000). Prosody and Focus in European Portuguese: Phonological Phrasing and Intonation. New York: Routledge.Find this resource:

Frota, Sónia (2002). ‘The Prosody of Focus: A Case-study with Cross-linguistic Implications’, in Proceedings of Speech Prosody. Aix en Provence, 319–322.Find this resource:

Frota, Sónia (2012). ‘A Focus Intonational Morpheme in European Portuguese: Production and Perception’, in P. Prieto (ed.), Prosody and Meaning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 163–196.Find this resource:

Fry, John and Juni Nakamura (2000). On Japanese Definite NPs: A Reply to Portner and Yabushita. Ms., Stanford University.Find this resource:

Fu, Cynthia H. Y., et al. (2006). ‘An fMRI Study of Verbal Self-monitoring: Neural Correlates of Auditory Verbal Feedback’, Cerebral Cortex, 16(7): 969–977.Find this resource:

(p. 874) Fukaya, Teruhiko and Hajime Hoji (1999). ‘Stripping and Sluicing in Japanese and Some Implications’, in Proceedings of the 18th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 18), 145–158.Find this resource:

Fuster, Joaquin M. (1997). ‘Network Memory’, Trends in Neurosciences 20(10): 451–459.Find this resource:

Gabelentz, Georg von der (1869). ‘Ideen zu einer vergleichenden Syntax’, Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft 6: 376–384.Find this resource:

Gabriel, Christoph (2010). ‘On Focus, Prosody, and Word Order in Argentinean Spanish: A Minimalist OT Account’, ReVEL Special edition 4: 183–222.Find this resource:

Gajewski, Jon (2013). ‘An Analogy between a Connected Exceptive Phrase and Polarity Items’, in Eva Csipak, Regine Eckardt, Mingya Liu, and Manfred Sailer (eds), Beyond ‘any’ and ‘ever’. Berlin: Mouton deGruyter, 183–212.Find this resource:

Gallego, Ángel J. (2007). Phase Theory and Parametric Variation. Ph.D. Dissertation. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Find this resource:

Ganushchak, Lesya, Agnieszka Konopka, and Yiya Chen (2014). ‘What the Eyes Say about Planning of Focused Referents during Sentence Formulation: A Cross-linguistic Investigation’, Frontiers of Psychology 5: 1124.Find this resource:

García Alvarez, Ivan (2011). Generality and Exception: The Semantics of Exceptive Constructions. Dissertation, Stanford, to be published by Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

García-Lecumberri, María L. (1995). Intonational Signalling of Information Structure in English and in Spanish: A Compartaive Study. PhD dissertation. University College London.Find this resource:

Gårding, Eva, Jialu Zhang, and Jan-Olof Svantesson (1983). ‘A Generative Model for Tone and Intonation in Standard Chinese Based on Data from One Speaker’, Lund Working Papers 25: 53–65.Find this resource:

Garrett, Merrill F. (1980). ‘Levels of processing in sentence production’, in B. Butterworth (ed.), Language Production. London: Academic Press, vol. 1, 177–220.Find this resource:

Garrett, Merrill F. (1988). ‘Processes in Language Production’, in F. S. Newmeyer (ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey: Volume 3, Language: Psychological and Biological Aspects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, vol. 3, 69–96.Find this resource:

Gärtner, Hans-Martin (2001). ‘Are there V2 relative clauses in German?’, The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 3: 97–141.Find this resource:

Gast, Volker and Johan van der Auwera (2011). ‘Scalar Additive Operators in the Languages of Europe’, Language 87(1): 2–54.Find this resource:

Gawron, Jean Mark (2004). ‘Accommodation and Propositional Focus’, Theoretical Linguistics 30: 87–97.Find this resource:

Gayraud, Frédérique (2004). ‘Emergence et Développement du Placement des Particules de Portée’, Acquisition et Interaction en Langue Etrangère 21: 173–96.Find this resource:

Gazdar, Gerald (1979). Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.Find this resource:

Gécseg, Zsuzsanna and Ferenc Kiefer (2009). ‘A New Look at Information Structure in Hungarian’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27: 583–622.Find this resource:

Geilfuß-Wolfgang, Joachim (1995). Über gewisse Fälle von Assoziation mit Fokus. Tübingen: Universität Tübingen.Find this resource:

Genetti, Carol (1988). ‘A Syntactic Correlate of Topicality in Newari Narrative’, in John Haiman and S. A. Thompson (eds), Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse (Typological studies in language 18). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins, 29–48.Find this resource:

Gengel, Kirsten (2013). Pseudogapping and Ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Georgakopoulos, Thanasis and Stavros Skopeteas (2010). ‘Projective vs. Interpretational Properties of Nuclear Accents and the Phonology of Contrastive Focus in Greek’, Linguistic Review 27(3): 319–346.Find this resource:

(p. 875) Georgiafentis, Michael (2004). Focus and Word Order Variation in Greek. PhD dissertation, University of Reading.Find this resource:

Gergel, Remus (2009). Modality and Ellipsis. Diachronic and Synchronic Evidence. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Gergel, Remus, Kirsten Gengel, and Susanne Winkler (2007). ‘Ellipsis and Inversion: A Feature-Based Account’, in K. Schwabe and S. Winkler (eds), On Information Structure, Meaning and Form (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 100). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 301–322.Find this resource:

German, James, Janet Pierrehumbert, and S. Kaufman (2006). ‘Evidence for Phonological Constraints on Nuclear Accent Placement’, Language 82(1): 151–168.Find this resource:

Geurts, Bart (2010). Quantity Implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Geurts, Bart and Rick Nouwen (2007). ‘ “At least” et al.: The semantics of scalar modifiers’, Language 83: 533–559.Find this resource:

Geurts, Bart and Rob van der Sandt (1997). ‘Presuppositions and Backgrounds’, in Paul Dekker and Martin Stokhof (ed.), Proceedings of the 11th Amsterdam Colloquium, 37–42.Find this resource:

Geurts, Bart and Rob van der Sandt (2004). ‘Interpreting Focus’, Theoretical Linguistics 30: 1–44.Find this resource:

Ghini, Mirco (1993). ‘Phonological Phrase formation in Italian: A New Proposal’, Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 12.Find this resource:

Giannakidou, Anastasia (2000). ‘Negative … Concord?’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 457–523.Find this resource:

Giannakidou, Anastasia (2001). ‘The Meaning of Free Choice’, Linguistics and Philosophy 24: 659–735.Find this resource:

Giannakidou, Anastasia (2006). ‘Only, Emotive Factives, and the Dual Nature of Polarity Dependency’, Language 82: 575–603.Find this resource:

Giannakidou, Anastasia (2007). ‘The Landscape of EVEN’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25: 39–81.Find this resource:

Gili Fivela, Barbara (1999). ‘The Prosody of Left-dislocated Topicalized Constituents in Italian Read Speech’, in G. Gordos (ed.), Proceedings of EuroSpeech, Budapest: European Speech Communication Association, 531–534.Find this resource:

Gili Fivela, Barbara (2002). ‘Tonal Alignment in Two Pisa Italian Peak Accents’, in B. Bel and I. Marlien (eds), Speech Prosody 2002: 339–342.Find this resource:

Gili Fivela, Barbara, Cinzia Avesani, Marco Barone, Giuliano Bocci, Claudia Crocco, Mariapaola D’Imperio, Rosa Giordano, Giovanna Marotta, Michelina Savino and Patrizia Sorianello (2015). ‘Intonational Phonology of the Regional Varieties of Italian’,, in S. Frota and P. Prieto (eds), Intonational in Romance, New York: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Ginzburg, Jonathan (1996). ‘Dynamics and semantics of dialogue’, in J. Selignman and D. Westerstahl (eds), Language, Logic and Communication. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Find this resource:

Ginzburg, Jonathan (2012). The Interactive Stance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Ginzburg, Jonathan and Ivan A. Sag (2000). Interrogative Investigations: The Form, Meaning and Use of English Interrogatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Find this resource:

Giraud, Anne-Lise and David Poeppel (2012). ‘Cortical Oscillations and Speech Processing: Emerging Computational Principles and Operations’, Nature Neuroscience 15: 511–517.Find this resource:

Girke, Wolfgang (1981). ‘Zur Funktion von i, takže und tože’, in P. Hill and V. Lehmann (eds), Slavistische Linguistik 1980. München, 7–26.Find this resource:

Giusti, Giuliana (2006). ‘Parallels in Clausal and Nominal Periphery’, in Mara Frascarelli (ed.), Phases of Interpretation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 163–186.Find this resource:

(p. 876) Givón, Talmy (1972). ‘Studies in ChiBemba and Bantu Grammar’, Studies in African Linguistics, Supplement 5.Find this resource:

Givón, Talmy (1975). ‘Focus and Scope of Assertion: Some Bantu Evidence’, Studies in African Linguistics 6: 185–205.Find this resource:

Givón, Talmy (1976). ‘Topic, Pronoun, and Grammatical Agreement’, in C. N. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, 149–188.Find this resource:

Givón, Talmy (1979). Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press.Find this resource:

Givón, Talmy (1983). ‘Topic Continuity in Discourse: An Introduction’, in Givón, T. (ed.), Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-language Study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–41.Find this resource:

Givón, Talmy (1984). ‘Direct Object and Dative Shifting: Semantic and Pragmatic Case’, in Frans Plank (ed.), Objects: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations. London: Academic Press, 151–182.Find this resource:

Givón, Talmy (1988). ‘The Pragmatics of Word-order: Predictability, Importance and Attention’, in M. Hammond, E. Moravcsik, and J. Wirth (eds), Studies in Syntactic Typology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 243–284.Find this resource:

Glanzberg, Michael (2005). ‘Presuppositions, Truth Values and Expressing Propositions’, in G. Preyer and G. Peter (eds), Contextualism in Philosophy: Knowledge, Meaning, and Truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 349–396.Find this resource:

Glave, R. D. and Toni Rietveld (1975). ‘Is the Effort Dependence of Speech Loudness Explicable on the Basis of Acoustic Cues?’ Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 58: 875–879.Find this resource:

Gleitman, Lila R., David January, Rebecca Nappa, and John C. Trueswell (2007). ‘On the give and take between event apprehension and utterance formulation’, Journal Of Memory and Language 57: 544–569.Find this resource:

Göbbel, Edward (2012). Extraposition of Relative Clauses: Phonological Solutions. Ms., University of Wuppertal.Find this resource:

Gobl, Christer (1988). ‘Voice Source Dynamics in Connected Speech’, STL-QPSR 1: 123–159.Find this resource:

Godfrey, John J., Edward C. Holliman, and Jane McDaniel (1992). ‘SWITCHBOARD: Telephone Speech Corpus for Research and Development’, in Proceedings of ICASSP-92. San Francisco, CA, 517–520.Find this resource:

Godjevac, Svetlana (2000). Intonation, Word Order, and Focus Projection in Serbo-Croatian. PhD thesis, Ohio State University.Find this resource:

Godjevac, Svetlana (2006). Focus Projection in Serbo-Croatian. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Find this resource:

Golcher, Felix (2012). Wiederholungen in Texten. Segmentieren und Klassifizieren mit vollständigen Substringfrequenzen. PhD Thesis, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.Find this resource:

Good, Jeff (2010). ‘Topic and Focus Fields in Naki’, in Ines Fiedler and Anne Schwartz (eds), The Expression of Information Structure: A Documentation of its Diversity across Africa. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 35–67.Find this resource:

Gordon, Peter C. and Davina Chan (1995). ‘Pronouns, Passives, and Discourse Coherence’, Journal of Memory and Language 34: 216–231.Find this resource:

Gordon, Peter C., Barbara J. Grosz, and Laura A. Gilliom (1993). ‘Pronouns, Names, and the Centering of Attention in Discourse’, Cognitive Science 17: 311–347.Find this resource:

Gordon, Peter C., Randall Hendrick, Kerry Ledoux, and Chin Lung Yang (1999). ‘Processing of Reference and the Structure of Language: An Analysis of Complex Noun Phrases’, Language and Cognitive Processes 14: 353–379.Find this resource:

(p. 877) Gorman, Kyle, Jonathan Howell, and Michael Wagner (2011). ‘Prosodylabaligner: A Tool for Forced Alignment of Laboratory Speech’. Proceedings of Acoustics Week in Canada. Canadian Acoustics 39: 192–193.Find this resource:

Gourley, Judith W. and Jack Catlin (1978). ‘Children’s Comprehension of Grammatical Structures in Context’, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 7: 419–434.Find this resource:

Grabe, Esther (1998). Comparative Intonational Phonology: English and German. Universiteit Nijmegen Doctoral.Find this resource:

Graff, Erich and Hans F. Massmann (1838). Wörterbuch der althochdeutschen Sprache. Bd. 4. Berlin.Find this resource:

Gray, Heather M., et al. (2004). ‘P300 as an Index of Attention to Self-relevant Stimuli’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 40(2): 216–224.Find this resource:

Gregory, Michelle and Laura A. Michaelis (2001). ‘Topicalization and Left-Dislocation: A Functional Opposition Revisited’, Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1665–1706.Find this resource:

Greif, Markus (2012). Corrective Focus in Mandarin Chinese: A Question of Belief? München: Lincom Europa.Find this resource:

Grewendorf, Günther (2005). ‘The discourse configurationality of Scrambling’, in Joachim Sabel and Mamoru Saito (eds), The Free Word Order Phenomenon: Its Syntactic Sources and Diversity. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter, 75–135.Find this resource:

Grewendorf, Günther (2008). ‘The Left Clausal Periphery: Clitic Left Dislocation in Italian and Left Dislocation in German’, in Benjamin Shaer, Philippa Cook, Werner Frey, and Claudia Maienborn (eds), Dislocated Elements in Discourse: Syntactic, Semantic, and Pragmatic Perspectives, London: Routledge, 49–94.Find this resource:

Grewendorf, Günther and Cecilia Poletto (2011). ‘Hidden Verb Second: The Case of Cimbrian’, in Michael T. Putnam (ed.), Studies on German-Language Islands. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 301–346.Find this resource:

Grice, H. Paul (1968). ‘Utterer’s Meaning, Sentence-Meaning, and Word-Meaning’, Foundations of Language 4: 225–242.Find this resource:

Grice, H. Paul (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Find this resource:

Grice, Martine, Stefan Baumann, and Ralf Benzmuller (2005a). ‘German Intonation in Autosegmental-metrical Phonology’, in Sun-Ah Jun (ed.), Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 55–83.Find this resource:

Grice, Martine, Mariapaola D’Imperio, Michelina Savino, and Cinzia Avesani (2005b). ‘Strategies for Intonation Labelling across Varieties of Italian’, in S.-A. Jun (ed.), Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 55, 83; 362–389.Find this resource:

Grice, Martine, D. Robert Ladd, and Amalia Arvaniti (2000). ‘On the Place of Phrase Accents in Intonational Phonology’, Phonology 17(2): 143–185.Find this resource:

Grice, Martine, Stefan Baumann, and Nils Jagdfeld (2009). ‘Tonal Association and Derived Nuclear Accents–The Case of Downstepping Contours in German’, in Sabine Zerbian, Laura Downing, and Frank Kügler (eds), Tone and Intonation in a Typological Perspective. Lingua 119, 6, special issue, 881–905.Find this resource:

Gries, Stefan Th. (2006). ‘Exploring Variability within and between Corpora: Some Methodological Considerations’, Corpora 1(2): 109–151.Find this resource:

Griffin, Zenzi M. and Kathryn Bock (2000). ‘What the Eyes Say about Speaking’, Psychological Science 11: 274–279.Find this resource:

Grimm, Jakob and Wilhelm Grimm (1854–1971). Deutsches Wörterbuch. Online version available at http://dwb.uni-trier.de/de/.

(p. 878) Grimshaw, Jane (1997). ‘Projections, Heads, and Optimality’, Linguistic Inquiry 28: 373–422.Find this resource:

Grimshaw, Jane (2001). ‘Economy of Structure in OT’, Rutgers Optimality Archive 434.Find this resource:

Grimshaw, Jane (2002). ‘Economy of Structure in OT’, in Angela Carpenter, Andries Coetzee, and Paul de Lacy (eds), Papers in Optimality Theory II (University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 26). Amherst, MA: GLSA, 81–129.Find this resource:

Grimshaw, Jane (2006). ‘Chains as Unfaithful Optima’, in Wondering at the Natural Fecundity of Things: Essays in Honor of Alan Prince. University of California Santa Cruz: Linguistic Research Centre, 97–109.Find this resource:

Grimshaw, Jane and Vieri Samek-Lodovici (1995). ‘Optimal Subjects’, in Jill Beckman, Laura Walsh Dickey, and Suzanne Urbanczyk (eds), Papers in Optimality Theory. Amherst, MA: GLSA, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 589–606.Find this resource:

Grimshaw, Jane and Vieri Samek-Lodovici (1998). ‘Optimal Subjects and Subject Universals’, in Pilar Barbosa, Danny Fox, Paul Hagstrom, Martha McGinnis, and David Pesetsky (eds), Is the Best Good Enough?. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 193–219.Find this resource:

Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof (1982). ‘Semantic Analysis of WH-Complements’, Linguistics and Philosophy 5: 175–233.Find this resource:

Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof (1984). Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam.Find this resource:

Grohmann, Kleanthes K. (2000). Prolific Peripheries: A Radical View from the Left. PhD Dissertation, University of Maryland.Find this resource:

Grohmann, Kleanthes K. (2002). ‘Anti-Locality and Clause Types’, Theoretical Linguistics 28(1): 43–72.Find this resource:

Grohmann, Kleanthes (2003). Prolific Domains. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Grosjean, François and Harlan Lane (1977). ‘Pauses and Syntax in ASL’, Cognition 5: 101–117.Find this resource:

Grosz, Barbara J. and Candace L. Sidner (1986). ‘Attention, Intentions, and the Structure of Discourse’, Computational Linguistics 12.Find this resource:

Grosz, Barbara and Yael Ziv (1998). ‘Centering, Global Focus, and Right Dislocation’, in Marilyn Walker, Aravind Joshi, and Ellen Prince (eds), Centering in Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 39–51.Find this resource:

Grosz, Barbara J., Aravind K. Joshi, and Scott Weinstein (1995). ‘Centering: A Framework for Modeling the Local Coherence of Discourse’, Computational Linguistics 21: 203–226.Find this resource:

Grosz, Patrick (2005). ‘dn’ in Viennese German. The Syntax of a Clitic Version of the Discourse Particle ‘ “denn’. MA thesis. University of Vienna.Find this resource:

Grosz, Patrick (2014). ‘German “doch”: An Element that Triggers a Contrast Presupposition’, in Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 46: 163–177.Find this resource:

Gruber, Jeffrey S. (1967). ‘Topicalization in Child Language’, Language and Speech 3: 37–65.Find this resource:

Grubic, Mira and Malte Zimmermann (2011). ‘Conventional and Free Association with Focus in Ngamo (West Chadic)’, in I. Reich et al. (eds), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 15. Saarbrücken: Saarland University Press, 291–305.Find this resource:

Grünloh, Thomas, Elena Lieven, and Michael Tomasello (2011). ‘German Children Use Prosody to Identify Participant Roles in Transitive Sentences’, Cognitive Linguistics 22: 393–419.Find this resource:

Gryllia, Stella (2009). On the Nature of Preverbal Focus in Greek. Dissertation, University of Leiden, Utrecht: LOT (Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics).Find this resource:

Gu, Wentao and Tan Lee (2007). ‘Effects of Tonal Context and Focus on Cantonese f0’, Proceedings of The 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS 2007). Dudweiler: Pirrot.Find this resource:

(p. 879) Gualmini, Andrea, Simona Maciukaite, and Stephen Crain (2003). ‘Children’s Insensitivity to Contrastive Stress in Sentences with ONLY’, in S. Arunachalam, E. Kaiser, and A. Williams (eds), Proceedings of PLC 25. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, 87–110.Find this resource:

Guerzoni, Elena (2006). ‘Intervention Effects on NPIs and Feature Movement: Towards a Unified Account of Intervention’, Natural Language Semantics 14(2): 359–398.Find this resource:

Güldemann, Tom (1996). Verbalmorphologie und Nebenprädikation im Bantu. Bochum. Brockmeyer.Find this resource:

Güldemann, Tom (2003). ‘Present Progressive vis-à-vis Predication Focus in Bantu: A Verbal Category between Semantics and Pragmatics’, Studies in Language 27(2): 323–360.Find this resource:

Güldemann, Tom (2007). ‘Preverbal Objects and Information Structure in Benue-Congo’, in E. O. Aboh, K. Hartmann, and M. Zimmermann (eds), Focus Strategies in African Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 83–111.Find this resource:

Gundel, Jeanette K. (1974). The Role of Topic and Comment in Linguistic Theory. PhD dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.Find this resource:

Gundel, Jeanette K. (1975). ‘Topic–Comment Structure and the Use of tože and takže’, The Slavic and East European Journal 19(2): 174–181.Find this resource:

Gundel, Jeanette (1985). ‘Shared Knowledge and Topicality’, Journal of Pragmatics 9: 83–107.Find this resource:

Gundel, Jeanette K. (1988). ‘Universals of Topic-Comment Structure’, in Michael Hammond, Edith A. Moravcsik, and Jessica R. Wirth (eds), Studies in Syntactic Typology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 209–239.Find this resource:

Gundel, Jeanette K. (2003). ‘Information Structure and Referential Givenness/Newness: How much Belongs in the Grammar?’, in S. Müller (ed.), Proceedings of the HPSG03 Conference, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Stanford: CSLI, 122–142.Find this resource:

Gundel, Jeanette K. and Thorstein Fretheim (2004). ‘Topic and Focus’. in G. Ward and L. Horn (eds), Handbook of Pragmatics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 175–196.Find this resource:

Gundel, Jeanette K., Nancy Hedberg, and Ron Zacharski (1993). ‘Cognitive Status and the Form of Referring Expressions in Discourse’, Language 69: 274–307.Find this resource:

Gundel, Jeanette K., Dimitris Ntelitheos, and Melinda Kowalsky (2007). ‘Children’s Use of Referring Expressions: Some Implications for Theory of Mind’, ZAS Papers in Linguistics 48: 1–21.Find this resource:

Gunter, Thomas C., Laurie A. Stowe, and Gusbertus Mulder (1997). ‘When Syntax Meets Semantics’, Psychophysiology 34: 660–676.Find this resource:

Günther, Christine (2012). The Elliptical Noun Phrase in English: Structure and Use. New York: Routledge.Find this resource:

Gupton, Timothy (2014). ‘Preverbal Subjects in Galician: Experimental Data in the A vs Ā Debate’, Probus 26: 135–175.Find this resource:

Gussenhoven, Carlos (1983a). ‘Focus, Mode, and the Nucleus’, Journal of Linguistics 19: 377–417.Find this resource:

Gussenhoven, Carlos (1983b). ‘Testing the Reality of Focus Domains’, Language and Speech 26, 61–80.Find this resource:

Gussenhoven, Carlos (1984). On the Grammar and Semantics of Sentence Accents. Dordrecht: Foris.Find this resource:

Gussenhoven, Carlos (1992). ‘Sentence Accents and Argument Structure’, in Iggy Roca (ed.), Thematic Structure, its Role in Grammar. Berlin, New York: Foris, 79–106.Find this resource:

Gussenhoven, Carlos (1999). ‘On the Limits of Focus Projection in English’, in P. Bosch and R. van der Sandt (eds), Focus: Linguistic, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 43–24.Find this resource:

(p. 880) Gussenhoven, Carlos (2004). The Phonology of Tone and Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Gussenhoven, Carlos (2008). ‘Notions and Subnotions in Information Structure’, Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55: 381–395.Find this resource:

Gutiérrez-Bravo, Rodrígo (2002a). ‘Focus, Word Order Variation and Intonation in Spanish and English’, in Caroline Wiltshire and Joaquim Camps (eds), Romance Phonology and Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 39–53.Find this resource:

Gutiérrez-Bravo, Rodrígo (2002b). Structural Markedness and Syntactic Structure: A Study of Word Order and the Left Periphery in Mexican Spanish. PhD Dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Find this resource:

Gutiérrez Ordóñez, S. (1997). Temas, remas, focos, tópicos y comentarios. Madrid: Arco Libros.Find this resource:

Gutzmann, Daniel (2008). On the Interaction between Modal Particles and Sentence Mood in German. Mainz: German Institute, Johannes Gutenberg University.Find this resource:

Gutzmann, Daniel (2010). ‘Betonte Modalpartikeln und Verumfokus’, in E. Hentschel, and Th. Harden (eds), 40 Jahre Partikelforschung. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, 119–138.Find this resource:

Gutzmann, Daniel (2012a). Use-conditional Meaning Studies in Multidimensional Semantics. PhD dissertation, University of Frankfurt.Find this resource:

Gutzmann, Daniel (2012b). ‘Verum—Fokus—Verumfokus’, in H. Lohnstein and H. Blühdorn (eds), Wahrheit—Fokus—Negation (= Sonderheft der Linguistischen Berichte 18). Hambur: Buske Verlag, 69–104.Find this resource:

Gutzmann, Daniel (2013). ‘Expressives and Beyond: An Introduction to Varieties of Use-Conditional Meaning’, in D. Gutzmann and H.-M. Gärtner (eds), Beyond Expressives: Explorations in Use-Conditional Meaning. Leiden: Brill, 1–59.Find this resource:

Gutzmann, Daniel and E. Castroviejo Miró (2011). ‘The Dimensions of Verum’, in O. Bonami and P. Cabredo Hofherr (eds), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 8, http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss8.Find this resource:

Gutzmann, Daniel and Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds) (2013). Beyond Expressives: Explorations in Use-Conditional Meaning. Leiden: Brill.Find this resource:

Gutzmann, Daniel and Katharina Hartmann (2012). Dissociating Verum from Focus. Talk given at Glow 35, Potsdam Workshop on Association with Focus, 31 March 2012.Find this resource:

Gyuris, Beàta (2002). The Semantics of Contrastive Topics in Hungarian. PhD thesis, Eőtvős Lorànd University, Budapest.Find this resource:

Gyuris, Beáta (2009a). ‘Sentence-types, Discourse Particles and Intonation in Hungarian’, in Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 13: 157–170.Find this resource:

Gyuris, Beáta (2009b). The Semantics and Pragmatics of the Contrastive Topic in Hungarian. Budapest: The Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and Lexica Ltd.Find this resource:

Hạ, Kiều Phương (2012). Prosody in Vietnamese: Intonational Form and Function of Short Utterances in Conversation. Köln: University of Cologne ph.d.Find this resource:

Hạ, Kiều Phương and Martine Grice (2010). ‘Modelling the Interaction of Intonation and Lexical Tone in Vietnamese’, in Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2010. Chicago.Find this resource:

Ha, Seungwan (2008a). Ellipsis, Right Node Raising, and Across-the-Board Constructions. PhD Dissertation, Boston University.Find this resource:

Ha, Seungwan (2008b). ‘Contrastive Focus: Licensor for Right Node Raising’, in E. Elfner and M. Walkow (eds), Proceedings of NELS 37, vol. 1. Amherst, MA: GLSA, University of Massachusetts, 247–260.Find this resource:

Ha, Seungwan (2008c). ‘On Ellipsis Features and Right Node Raising’, in Proceedings of ConSOLE XV: 67–90.Find this resource:

(p. 881) Habermas, Jürgen (1973). ‘Wahrheitstheorien’, in H. Fahrenbach (ed.), Wirklichkeit und Reflexion. Walter Schulz zum 60.Geburtstag. Pfullingen: Neske, 211–265.Find this resource:

Haegeman, Liliane (1991). Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Find this resource:

Haegeman, Liliane (1995). The Syntax of Negation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Haegeman, Liliane (1991/2009). ‘Parenthetical Adverbials: The Radical Orphanage Approach’, in Benjamin Shaer, Philippa Cook, Werner Frey, and Claudia Maienborn (eds), Dislocated Elements in Discourse, New York: Routledge, 331–347.Find this resource:

Haegeman, Liliane (2002), ‘Anchoring to Speaker, Adverbial Clauses and the Structure of CP’. In Georgetown University Working Papers in Theoretical Linguistics,, Georgetown University, vol. 2, 117–180.Find this resource:

Haegeman, Liliane (2003). ‘Conditional Clauses: External and Internal Syntax’, Mind & Language, 18(4): 317–339.Find this resource:

Haegeman, Liliane (2004). ‘DP-periphery and Clausal Periphery: Possessor Doubling in West Flemish’, in David Adger, Cécile de Cat, and George Tsoulas (eds), Peripheries. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 211–240.Find this resource:

Haegeman, Liliane (2009). ‘The Movement Analysis of Temporal Adverbial Clauses’, English Language and Linguistics 13: 385–408.Find this resource:

Haegeman, Liliane (2010a). ‘The Internal Syntax of Adverbial Clauses’, Lingua, 120: 628–648.Find this resource:

Haegeman, Liliane (2010b). ‘The Movement Derivation of Conditional Clauses’, Linguistic Inquiry 41: 595–621.Find this resource:

Haegeman, Liliane (2012). Adverbial Clauses, Main Clause Phenomena, and Composition of the Left Periphery: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 8. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Hagoort, Peter, Colin Brown, and Jolanda Groothusen (1993). ‘The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing’, Language and Cognitive Processes, 8: 439–483.Find this resource:

Haider, Hubert (1981): ‘Empty Categories: On some Differences between German and English.’ Wiener Linguistische Gazette 25: 13–36.Find this resource:

Haider, Hubert (1993). Deutsche Syntax—generativ. Tübingen: Narr.Find this resource:

Haider, Hubert and Inger Rosengren (2003). ‘Scrambling: Nontriggered Chain Formation in OV Languages’, Journal of Germanic Linguistics 15(3): 203–266.Find this resource:

Haidou, Konstantina (2012). The Syntax–Pragmatics Interface of Focus Prominence in Greek. PhD dissertation, SOAS, London.Find this resource:

Haiman, John (1978). ‘Conditionals are Topics’, Language and Speech 54: 564–589.Find this resource:

Hajič, Jan, Jarmila Panevová, Eva Hajičová, Petr Sgall, Petr Pajas, Jan Štěpánek, Jiří Havelka, and Marie Mikulová (2006). Prague Dependency Treebank 2.0. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Find this resource:

Hajičová, Eva (1984). ‘Presupposition and Allegation Revisited’, Journal of Pragmatics, 8: 155–167.Find this resource:

Hajičová, Eva, Barbara H. Partee, and Petr Sgall (1998). Topic–Focus Articulation, Tripartite Structures and Semantic Content. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Find this resource:

Hajičová, Eva, Jarmila Panevová, and Petr Sgall (2000). ‘Coreference in Annotating a Large Corpus’, in Proceedings of LREC-2000. Athens, 497–500.Find this resource:

Halbert, Anne, Stephen Crain, Donald Shankweiler, and Elaine Woodams (1995). Children’s Interpretive Use of Emphatic Stress. Poster presented at the 8th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Tuscon, AZ.Find this resource:

Hale, John (2003). ‘The Information Conveyed by Words in Sentences’, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 32(2): 101–123.Find this resource:

(p. 882) Hale, Ken (1983). ‘Warlpiri and the Grammar of Non-configurational Languages’, Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 1: 5–47.Find this resource:

Hale, Ken and Jay Keyser (1993). ’On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations’, in Ken Hale and Jay Keyser (eds), The View from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 53–109.Find this resource:

Hale, Kenneth and S. Jay Keyser (2002). Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Halle, Morris and Jean-Roger Vergnaud (1987). An Essay on Stress. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Halliday, Michael A. K. (1967). Some Aspects of the Thematic Organization of the English Clause. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.Find this resource:

Halliday, Michael A. K. (1967–1968). ’Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English’, Journal of Linguistics 3: 37–81, 199–244, 4: 179–216.Find this resource:

Halliday, Michael A. K. (1967). Intonation and Grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton.Find this resource:

Halliday, Michael A. K. (1970). A Course in Spoken English: Intonation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Halvorsen, Per-Kristian (1978). The Syntax and Semantics of Cleft Constructions. Dissertation, University of Texas.Find this resource:

Hamblin, Carl L. (1973). ‘Questions in Montague English’, Foundations of Language 10: 41–53.Find this resource:

Hamblin, Carl L. (1974). ‘Questions in Montague-English’, in B. Partee (ed.), Montague Grammar. New York: Academic Press, 247–259.Find this resource:

Hamlaoui, Fatima (2008). ‘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 Linguists. Seoul: Linguistic Society of Korea.Find this resource:

Hamlaoui, Fatima (2011). ‘On the Role of Phonology and Discourse in Francilian French Wh-questions’, Journal of Linguistics 47: 129–162.Find this resource:

Hamlaoui, Fatima and Emmanuel-Moselly Makasso (2011). ‘Bàsàa wh-questions and Prosodic Structuring’, ZAS Papers in Linguistics 55: 47–63.Find this resource:

Hankamer, Jorge and Ivan A. Sag (1976). ‘Deep and Surface Anaphora’, Linguistic Inquiry 7(3): 391–428.Find this resource:

Hanssen, Judith, Jörg Peters, and Carlos Gussenhoven (2008). ‘Prosodic Effects of Focus in Dutch Declaratives’, Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2008. Campinas, Brazil, 609–612.Find this resource:

Hara, Yurie (2006a). Japanese Discourse Items at Interfaces. PhD Dissertation. University of Delaware.Find this resource:

Hara, Yurie (2006b). Grammar of Knowledge Representation: Japanese Disourse Items at Interfaces Japanese Discourse Items at Interfaces. PhD Thesis, University of Delaware, Newark, DE.Find this resource:

Hara, Yurie (2008). ‘Scope Inversion in Japanese: Contrastive Topics Require Implicatures’, in Japanese/Korean Linguistics 13. CSLI Publication.Find this resource:

Hara, Yurie and Robert van Rooij (2007). ‘Contrastive Topics Revisited: A Simpler Set of Topic-Alternatives’, in Handout from the 38th Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society. 26–28 October 2007, University of Ottawa.Find this resource:

Hardt, Daniel (1993). Verb Phrase Ellipsis: Form, Meaning, and Processing. PhD Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Find this resource:

Hare, Richard M. (1971). Practical Inferences. London: Macmillan, 74–93.Find this resource:

Harford, Carolyn and Katherine Demuth (1999). ‘Prosody Outranks Syntax: An Optimality Approach to Subject Inversion in Bantu Relatives’, Linguistic Analysis 29: 46–68.Find this resource:

(p. 883) Harizanov, Boris (2014). ‘Clitic Doubling at the Syntax–Morphophonology Interface: A-Movement and Morphological Merger in Bulgarian’, Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 32(4): 1033–1088.Find this resource:

Harries-Delisle, Helga (1978). ‘Contrastive Emphasis and Cleft Sentences’, in Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Human Language, vol. 4. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 419–486.Find this resource:

Hartman, Jeremy (2011). ‘The Semantic Uniformity of Traces: Evidence from Ellipsis Parallelism’, Linguistic Inquiry 42(3): 367–388.Find this resource:

Hartmann, Katharina (2000). Right Node Raising and Gapping: Interface Conditions on Prosodic Deletion. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.Find this resource:

Hartmann, Katharina (2003). ‘Background Matching in Right Node Raising Constructions’, in K. Schwabe and S. Winkler (eds) The Interfaces: Deriving and Interpreting Omitted Structures (Linguistik Aktuell 61). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 121–151.Find this resource:

Hartmann, Katharina (2011). The Interaction of Constituent and Verum Focus in South Marghi and Other Chadic Languages. Potsdam: Ms., Universität Potsdam.Find this resource:

Hartmann, Katharina (2013). ‘Verum Intervention Effects in Chadic Languages’, Lingua 136: 103–124.Find this resource:

Hartmann, Katharina and Malte Zimmermann (2007). ‘Focus Strategies in Chadic: The Case of Tangale Revisited’, Studia Linguistica 61(2): 95–129.Find this resource:

Hartmann, Katharina and Malte Zimmermann (2009). ‘Morphological Focus Marking in Gùrùntùm/ West Chadic’, Lingua 119: 1340–1365.Find this resource:

Hartmann, Katharina and Malte Zimmermann, (2012). ‘Focus Marking in Bura: Semantic Uniformity Matches Syntactic Heterogeneity’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30(4): 1061–1108.Find this resource:

Hartmann, Katharina, Peggy Jacob, and Malte Zimmermann, (2008). ‘Focus Asymmetries in Bura’, in S. Ishihara, S. Petrova, and A. Schwarz (eds), Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 10. Potsdam. Universitätsverlag Potsdam, 45–92. http://opus.kobv.de/ubp/volltexte/2008/1938/.Find this resource:

Hasegawa, Nobuko (1984/85). ‘On the so-called “Empty Pronouns” in Japanese’, The Linguistic Review 4: 289–341.Find this resource:

Haspelmath, Martin (2001). ‘The European Linguistic Area: Standard Average European’, in Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher, and Wolfgang Raible (eds), Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2: 1492–1510.Find this resource:

Haspelmath, Martin (2007). ‘Pre-established Categories don’t Exist: Consequences for Language Description and Typology’, Linguistic Typology 11: 119–32.Find this resource:

Haug, Dag T. T., Hanne M. Eckhoff, Marek Majer, and Eirik Welo (2009). ‘Breaking Down and Putting Back Together: Analysis and Synthesis of New Testament Greek’, Journal of Greek Linguistics 9(1): 56–92.Find this resource:

Haug, Dag T. T., Hanne Eckhoff, and Eirik Welo (2014). ‘The Theoretical Foundations of Givenness Annotation’, in Kristin Bech and Kristine Gunn Eide (eds), Information Structure and Syntactic Change in Germanic and Romance Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 17–52.Find this resource:

Haviland, Susan E. and Herbert H. Clark (1974). ‘What’s New? Acquiring New Information as a Process in Comprehension’, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13 (5): 512–521.Find this resource:

Hawkins, John (1994). A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

(p. 884) Hawkins, John A. (2004). Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Hawkinson, Annie K. and Larry M. Hyman (1974). ‘Hierarchies of Natural Topic in Shona’, Studies in African Linguistics 5: 147–170.Find this resource:

Hayes, Bruce (1984). ‘The Phonology of Rhythm in English’, Linguistic Inquiry 15: 33–74.Find this resource:

Hayes, Bruce (1995). Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Find this resource:

Heck, Fabian (2000). ‘Tiefenoptimierung: Deutsche Wortstellung als wettbewerbsgesteuerte Basisgenerierung’, Linguistische Berichte 184: 441–468.Find this resource:

Hedberg, Nancy (2012). ‘Multiple Focus and Cleft Sentences’, to appear in K. Hartmann and T. Veenstra (eds), Cleft Structures, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Hedberg, Nancy and Juan M. Sosa (2007). ‘The Prosody of Topic and Focus in Spontaneous English Dialogue’, in C. Lee, M. Gordon, and D. Büring (eds), Topic and Focus: Cross-Linguistic Perspectives on Meaning and Intonation. Dordrecht: Springer, 101–120.Find this resource:

Heeger, David J. and David Ress (2002). ‘What Does fMRI tell us about Neuronal Activity?’, Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3: 142–151.Find this resource:

Heim, Irene (1982). The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. PhD Dissertation, Amherst: University of Massachusetts.Find this resource:

Heim, Irene (1990a). ‘E-type Pronouns and Donkey Anaphora’, Linguistics and Philosophy 13: 137–177.Find this resource:

Heim, Irene (1990b). ‘Presupposition Projection’, in R. van der Sandt (ed.), Reader for the Nijmegen Workshop on Presupposition, Lexical Meaning, and Discourse Processes, Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen Press.Find this resource:

Heim, Irene (1991). ‘Artikel und Definitheit’, in Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 487–535.Find this resource:

Heim, Irene, and Angelika Kratzer (1998). Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Find this resource:

Heim, Stefan and Kai Alter (2006). ‘Prosodic Pitch Accents in Language Comprehension and Production: ERP Data and Acoustic Analyses’, Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis, 66 (1): 55–68.Find this resource:

Heine, Bernd (1976). A Typology of African Languages Based on the Order of Meaningful Elements. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag.Find this resource:

Heldner, Mattias (2001). Focal Accent—F0 Movement and beyond. PHONUM 8. Umeå University.Find this resource:

Heldner, Mattias (2003). ‘On the Reliability of Overall Intensity and Spectral Emphasis as Acoustic Correlates of Focal Accents in Swedish’, Journal of Phonetics 31: 39–62.Find this resource:

Hemforth, Barbara (1993). Kognitives Parsing: Repräsentation und Verarbeitung sprachlichen Wissens. St. Augustin, Germany: Infix Verlag.Find this resource:

Hempel, Carl G. (1935). ‘On the Logical Positivists’ Theory of Truth’, Analysis 2(4): 49–59.Find this resource:

Hempelmann, Christian F., David Dufty, Philip M. McCarthy, Arthur C. Graesser, Zhiqiang Cai, and Danielle S. McNamara (2005). ‘Using LSA to Automatically Identify Givenness and Newness of Noun-Phrases in Written Discourse’, in B. Bara (ed.), Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meetings of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 941–946.Find this resource:

Hendrickx, Iris, Gosse Boumaz, Frederik Coppens, Walter Daelemans, Veronique Hoste, Geert Kloostermanz, Anne-Marie Mineurz, Joeri Van Der Vloet, and Jean-Luc Verschelde (2008). ‘A Coreference Corpus and Resolution System for Dutch’, in Proceedings of the 6th (p. 885) International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-2008), Marrakech, 144–149.Find this resource:

Hendriks, Bernadet (2007). ‘Simultaneous Use of the Two Hands in Jordanian Sign Language’, in M. Vermeerbergen, L. Leeson, and O. Crasborn (eds), Simultaneity in Sign Languages: Form and Function. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 237–255.Find this resource:

Hendriks, Petra and Charlotte Koster (2010). ‘Production/Comprehension Asymmetries in Language Acquisition’, Lingua 120: 1887–1897.Find this resource:

Hengeveld, Kees and J. Lachlan Mackenzie (2008). Functional Discourse Grammar: A Typologically Oriented Theory of Language Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Hentschel, Elke (1986). Funktion und Geschichte deutscher Partikeln. ‘Ja’, ‘doch’, ‘halt’ und ‘eben’. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Find this resource:

Herburger, Elena (1993). ‘Focus and the LF of NP Quantification’, in Uptal Lahiri and Adam Zachary Wyner (eds), SALT III. Ithaca: Cornell University, Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics, 77–96.Find this resource:

Herburger, Elena (1997). ‘Focus and Weak Noun Phrases’, Natural Language Semantics 5: 53–78.Find this resource:

Hernanz, Maria-Lluïsa (2006). ‘Emphatic Polarity and C in Spanish’, in L. Brugè (ed.), Studies in Spanish Syntax. Venice: Libreria Editrice Cafoscarina, 105–150.Find this resource:

Herrmann, Annika (2013). Modal and Focus Particles in Sign Languages. A Cross-linguistic Study. Berlin/Nijmegen: De Gruyter Mouton/Ishara Press.Find this resource:

Herrmann, Annika (2010). ‘The Interaction of Eye Blinks and Other Prosodic Cues in German Sign Language’, Sign Language & Linguistics 13(3): 3–39.Find this resource:

Hetland, Jorunn (1992a). ‘Polaritätsfokus, VERUM-Fokus, Kopffokus’, Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 45: 3–16.Find this resource:

Hetland, Jorunn (1992b). ‘VERUM-Fokus. Fakten, Hypothesen, Fragen und nochmals Fragen’, Sprache und Pragmatik, Arbeitsberichte 25: 11–27.Find this resource:

van Heuven, Vincent (1994). ‘What is the Smallest Prosodic Domain?’, in P. Keating (ed.), Phonological Structure and Phonetic Form. Papers in Laboratory Phonology III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Heycock, Caroline (1994). ‘Focus Projection in Japanese’, North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 24: 157–71.Find this resource:

Heycock, Caroline (2008). ‘Japanese -wa, -ga, and Information Structure’, in Shigeru Miyagawa and Mamoru Saito (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Japanese Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Hickmann, Maya, Henriette Hendriks, Francois Roland, and James Liang (1996). ‘The Marking of New Information in Children’s Narratives: A Comparison of English, French, German and Mandarin Chinese’, Journal of Child Language 23: 591–619.Find this resource:

Higginbotham, James (1986). ‘The Semantics of Questions’, in S. Lappin (ed.) Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Oxford. Basil Blackwell, 361–383.Find this resource:

Higgins, F. Roger (1973). The Pseudo-Cleft Construction in English. PhD dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT.Find this resource:

Hinterhölzl, Roland and Svetlana Petrova (eds) (2009). Information Structure and Language Change. New Approaches to Word Order Variation in German. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Hinterhölzl, Roland and Svetlana Petrova (2010). ‘From V1 to V2 in West Germanic’, Lingua 120: 315–328.Find this resource:

Hinterwimmer, Stefan and David Schueler (2012). ‘Requantification and Partial Focus in Indefinites’, Sinn und Bedeutung. 16. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Find this resource:

(p. 886) Hintikka, Jaakko (1962). Knowledge and Belief: An Introduction to the Logic of the Two Notions. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Find this resource:

Hintikka, Jaakko (1973). Logic, Language-Games and Information. Oxford: Clarendon PressOxford.Find this resource:

Hiraiwa, Ken and Shinichiro Ishihara (2002). ‘Missing Links: Cleft, Sluicing, and “No da” Construction in Japanese’, in Proceedings of HUMIT 2001, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 43: 35–54.Find this resource:

Hiraiwa, Ken, and Shinichiro Ishihara (2012). ‘Syntactic Metamorphosis: Cleft, Sluicing, and In-situ Focus in Japanese’, Syntax 15: 142–180.Find this resource:

Hirotani, Masako and Petra B. Schumacher (2011). ‘Context and Topic Marking Affect Distinct Processes during Discourse Comprehension in Japanese’, Journal of Neurolinguistics 24(3): 276–292.Find this resource:

Hirschberg, Julia (1991). A Theory of Scalar Implicature. New York: Garland.Find this resource:

Hirschberg, Julia and Gregory Ward (1991). ‘Accent and Bound Anaphora’, Cognitive Linguistics 2(2): 101–121.Find this resource:

Hirschman, Lynette, Patricia Robinson, John D. Burger, and Marc B.Vilain (1998). Automating Coreference: The Role of Annotated Training Data. AAAI technical report SS-98-01. Available at: http://www.aaai.org/Papers/Symposia/Spring/1998/SS-98-01/SS98-01-018.pdf.Find this resource:

Hlavac, Marek (2013). Stargazer: Latex code and ascii text for well-formatted regression and summary statistics tables. URL http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=stargazer, r package version 4.5.3.

Hobbs, Jerry R. (1985). ‘On the Coherence and Structure of Discourse’, Technical Report 85-37, Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI), Stanford, CA.Find this resource:

Hoeks, John C. J., Wietske Vonk, and Herbert Schriefers (2002). ‘Processing Coordinated Structures in Context: The Effect of Topic-Structure on Ambiguity Resolution’, Journal of Memory and Language, 46(1): 99–119.Find this resource:

Hoeks, John C. J., Petra Hendriks, and Louisa J. Zijlstra (2006). ‘The Predominance of Non-structural Factors in the Processing of Gapping Sentences’, in R. Sun (ed.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 1511–1516.Find this resource:

Hoeks, John C. J., Petra Hendriks, and Gisela Redeker (2007). ‘Prosody, Context, and Thematic Fit Meet “Gapping”: The Interaction of Multiple Constraints in Spoken Sentence Comprehension’, in D. S. McNamara and J. G. Trafton (eds), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX, 1085–1090.Find this resource:

Hoeks, John C. J., Gisela Redeker, and Petra Hendriks (2009). ‘Fill the Gap! Combining Pragmatic and Prosodic Information to Make Gapping Easy’, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 38: 221–235.Find this resource: