Exhaustivity of focus and anti-exhaustivity of contrastive topic

References

Beck, Sigrid. 2006. Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 14. 1–56.10.1007/s11050-005-4532-ySearch in Google Scholar

Bromberger, Sylvain. 1992. On what we know we don’t know: Explanation, theory, linguistics, and how questions shape them. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Büring, Daniel. 1997. The great scope inversion conspiracy. Linguistics and Philosophy 20. 175–194.10.1023/A:1005397026866Search in Google Scholar

Büring, Daniel. 2003. On d-trees, beans, and b-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy 26. 511–545.10.1023/A:1025887707652Search in Google Scholar

Hara, Yurie. 2006. Grammar of knowledge representation: Japanese discourse items at interfaces. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Delaware, Newark, DE.Search in Google Scholar

Kaufmann, Magdalena. 2011. Interpreting imperatives. Heidelberg: Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-2269-9Search in Google Scholar

Kawamura, Tomoko. 2007. Some interactions of focus and focus sensitive elements. Doctoral Dissertation, Stony Brook University, SUNY.Search in Google Scholar

Kitagawa, Yoshihisa, Dorian Roehrs & Satoshi Tomioka. 2004. Multiple wh interpretations. In H.-J. Yoon (ed.), Generative Grammar in a Broader Perspective: Proceedings of the 4th GLOW in Asia, 209–233. Seoul: Seoul National University.Search in Google Scholar

Ko, Heejeong. 2005. Syntax of why-in-situ: Merge into [spec, cp] in the overt syntax. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23. 867–916.10.1007/s11049-004-5923-3Search in Google Scholar

Krifka, Manfred. 2001. Quantifying into question acts. Natural Language Semantics 9. 1–40.10.1023/A:1017903702063Search in Google Scholar

Krifka, Manfred. 2014. Embedding illocutionary acts. In T. Roeper & P. Speas (eds.), Recursion: Complexity in cognition, 59–87. Heidelberg: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-05086-7_4Search in Google Scholar

Rizzi, Luigi. 2001. On the position of “int(errogative)” in the left periphery of the clause. In G. Cinque & G. Salvi (eds.), Current studies in italian syntax, 267–296. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Search in Google Scholar

Roberts, Craige. 1996. Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Ohio state university working papers in linguistics 49. 91–136.10.3765/sp.5.6Search in Google Scholar

Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1. 117–121.10.1007/BF02342617Search in Google Scholar

Sauerland, Uli. 2004. Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 27. 343–377.10.1023/B:LING.0000023378.71748.dbSearch in Google Scholar

Tomioka, Satoshi. 2010a. Contrastive topics operate on speech acts. In M. Zimmermann & C. Caroline (eds.), Information structure from different perspectives, 753–773. OUP.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199570959.003.0006Search in Google Scholar

Tomioka, Féry. 2010b. A scope theory of contrastive topics. Iberia: International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 2. 113–130.Search in Google Scholar

Tomioka, Satoshi. 2017. Focus–prosody mismatch in Japanese why-questions. In C. Guillemot et al. (eds.), Proceedings of wafl 13, 269–279. MITWPL.Search in Google Scholar

Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1995. Phonological phrases: their relation to syntax, focus, and prominence. Doctoral Dissertation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Search in Google Scholar

Willis, Paul M. 2008. The role of topic-hood in multiple-wh question semantics. In Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics Poster Session, 87–95.Search in Google Scholar