Focus and contrastive topic: More questions, and answers

References

Bayer, Josef. 1984. COMP in Bavarian syntax. The Linguistic Review 3. 209–274.10.1515/tlir.1984.3.3.209Search in Google Scholar

Brasoveanu, Adrian & Anna Szabolcsi. 2013. Presuppositional too, postsuppositional too. In M. Aloni, M. Franke & F. Roelofsen (eds.), The dynamic, inquisitive, and visionary life of … A festschrift for Jeroen Groenendijk, Martin Stokhof, and Frank Veltman, 55–64. Retrieved from: http://festschriften.illc.uva.nl/Festschrift-JMF/.Search in Google Scholar

Cohen, Ariel & Manfred Krifka. 2014. Superlative quantifiers and meta-speech acts. Linguistics and Philosophy 37. 41–90.10.1007/s10988-014-9144-xSearch in Google Scholar

Constant, Noah. 2014. Contrastive topic: Meanings and realizations. Doctoral dissertation. University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Search in Google Scholar

Dretske, Fred. 1972. Contrastive Statements. The Philosophical Review 81. 411–437.10.2307/2183886Search in Google Scholar

Drubig, Hans Bernhard. 1994. Island constraints and the syntactic nature of focus and association with focus. Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340 Nr 51. University of Tübingen.Search in Google Scholar

Eckardt, Regine. 2007. Was noch? Navigating in Question Answer Discourse. In A. Späth (ed.), Interface and interface conditions, 77–97. Berlin: Mouton DeGruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Farkas, Donka F. & Kim B. Bruce. 2010. On reacting to assertions and polar questions. Journal of Semantics 27. 81–118.10.1093/jos/ffp010Search in Google Scholar

Groenendijk, Jeroen & Martin Stokhof. 1991. Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14. 39–100.10.1007/BF00628304Search in Google Scholar

Grubic, Mira. 2018. Two strategies of opening QUDs — evidence from German auch and noch. Sinn & Bedeutung 21. 517–534.Search in Google Scholar

Haida, Andreas. 2008. The indefiniteness and focusing of wh-words. Doctoral dissertation. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.10.3765/salt.v18i0.2510Search in Google Scholar

Hamblin, Charles L. 1971. Mathematical models of dialogue. Theoria 37. 130–155.10.1111/j.1755-2567.1971.tb00065.xSearch in Google Scholar

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

Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Jacobs, Joachim. 1986. The syntax of focus and adverbials in German. In W. Abraham & S. de Meij (eds.), Topic, focus and configurationality, 103–127. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.4.06jacSearch in Google Scholar

Kamali, Beste. 2015. Caseless direct object in Turkish revisited. In A. Meinunger (ed.), ZASPIL 58: Byproducts and Side effects, 107–123. Berlin: ZAS10.21248/zaspil.58.2015.430Search in Google Scholar

Kamali, Beste & Lena Karvovskaya. 2013. ‘Also’ in Turkish and Ishkashimi. In Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics. U. Özge (ed.)Search in Google Scholar

Kamp, Hans. 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation. In J. A. G. Groenendijk, et al. (eds.), Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Vol. 135, 277–322. Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre Tracts.Search in Google Scholar

Klein, Wolfgang. 1980. Argumentation und Argument. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und LInguistik 38/39. 9–57.Search in Google Scholar

Kobele, Gregory M. 2018. The Cooper Storage Idiom. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 27. 95–131.10.1007/s10849-017-9263-1Search in Google Scholar

Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2018. Adjacency and (apparent) lack thereof in Turkish DOM. In L. Kalin, I. Paul & J. Vander Klok (eds.), Heading in the right direction: Linguistic treats for Lisa Travis, Vol. 25: 1, 232–238. Montreal: McGill Working Papers in Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar

Krifka, Manfred. 1996. Parametrized sum individuals for plural anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 19. 555–598.10.1007/BF00632708Search 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. 2006. Association with focus phrases. In V. Molnár & S. Winkler (eds.), The architecture of focus, 105–136. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110922011.105Search in Google Scholar

Krifka, Manfred. 2014. Embedding illocutionary acts. In T. Roeper & M. Speas (eds.), Recursion. Complexity in cognition, 125–155. Cham: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-05086-7_4Search in Google Scholar

Krifka, Manfred. 2015. Bias in Commitment Space Semantics: Declarative questions, negated questions, and question tags. SALT 25. 328–345.10.3765/salt.v25i0.3078Search in Google Scholar

Krifka, Manfred. 2019. Indicative and subjunctive conditionals in commitment spaces. Proceedings of the 22nd Amsterdam Colloquium. http://events.illc.uva.nl/AC/AC2019/Proceedings/: 248–258.Search in Google Scholar

Krifka, Manfred. To appear. Layers of assertive clauses: Propositions, judgments, commitments, acts. In J. M. Hartmann & A. Wöllstein (eds.), Propositionale Argumente im Sprachvergleich: Theorie und Empirie. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Search in Google Scholar

Kripke, Saul. 2009. Presupposition and anaphora: Remarks on the formulation of the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry 40. 367–386.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199730155.003.0012Search in Google Scholar

McCloskey, James. 2006. Questions and questioning in a local English. In R. Zanuttini et al. (eds.), Crosslinguistic research in syntax and semantics: Negation, tense, and clause architecture, 87–125. Washington D.C: Georgetown University.Search in Google Scholar

Modarresi, Fereshteh & Manfred Krifka. Submitted. Pseudo Incorporation and Anaphoricity: Evidence from Persian.Search in Google Scholar

Muskens, Reinhard. 1996. Combining Montague semantics and discourse representation. Linguistics and Philosophy 19. 143–186.10.1007/BF00635836Search in Google Scholar

Nishigauchi, Taisuke. 1992. Construing WH. In C.-T. J. Huang & R. May (eds.), Logical structure and linguistic structure. Cross-linguistic perspective, 197–232. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-3472-9_7Search in Google Scholar

Nolda, Andreas. 2007. Die Thema-Integration. Syntax und Semantik der “gespaltenen Topikalisierung” im Deutschen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Search in Google Scholar

Onea, Edgar. 2016. Potential questions at the semantics-pragmatics interface. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789004217935Search in Google Scholar

Price, Huw. 1990. Why ‘Not’? Mind 99. 221–238.10.1093/mind/XCIX.394.221Search in Google Scholar

Roberts, Craige. 1996. Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. OSU 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. 75–116.10.1007/BF02342617Search in Google Scholar

Schallert, Oliver, Alexander Dröge & Jeffrey Pheiff. 2018. Doubly-filled COMPs in Dutch and German: A bottom-up approach. lingbuzz/003979.Search in Google Scholar

Stalnaker, Robert. 1978. Assertion. In P. Cole (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 9: Pragmatics, 315–322. New York: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004368873_013Search in Google Scholar

Staudacher, Peter. 1987. Zur Semantik indefiniter Nominalphrasen. In B. Asbach-Schnitker & J. Roggenhofer (eds.), Neuere Forschungen zur Wortbilung und Historiographie in der Linguistik, 239–258. Tübingen: Narr.Search in Google Scholar

Tomioka, Satoshi. 2017. Focus-prosody mismatch in Japanese Why-questions. Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL) 14.Search in Google Scholar

von Stechow, Arnim. 1990. Focusing and backgrounding operators. In W. Abraham (ed.), Discourse particles, 37–84. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.12.04steSearch in Google Scholar

von Stechow, Arnim. 1996. Against LF pied-piping. Natural Language Semantics 4. 57–110.10.1007/BF00263537Search in Google Scholar

Wold, Dag. 1996. Long distance selective binding: The case of focus. SALT 6. 311–328.10.3765/salt.v6i0.2766Search in Google Scholar