---
title: "Deconstructing information structure — Kratzer 2020"
description: "Kratzer and Selkirk argue that most of these phenomena come from two ordinary privative… 171 references, cited by 4 papers here."
authors: ["Angelika Kratzer", "Elisabeth Selkirk"]
year: 2020
venue: "Glossa: a journal of general linguistics"
source: "https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/id/5361/"
doi: "10.5334/gjgl.968"
licence: "CC BY 4.0"
licence_url: "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"
summary_licence: "Elamur Cosmic License"
canonical: "https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/kratzer-2020-deconstructing-information-structure/"
---
[Elamur Research](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/kratzer-2020-deconstructing-information-structure/)

[home](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) / [papers](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/) / [2020](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2020/page/5/) / Deconstructing information structure

# Deconstructing information structure

**Authors:** Angelika Kratzer and Elisabeth Selkirk · **Year:** 2020 · **Venue:** [Glossa: a journal of general linguistics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/glossa-a-journal-of-general-linguistics/) ([Glossa a journal of general linguistics 2020](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/glossa-a-journal-of-general-linguistics/2020/)) · **Publisher:** [Ubiquity Press](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/publishers/ubiquity-press/) · **Licence:** [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

**Links:** [Publisher's page](https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.968) · [PDF](https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/5361/galley/12988/download) · [DOI 10.5334/gjgl.968](https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.968) · [OpenAlex](https://openalex.org/W2904988021)

**Citations:** 79 citations (OpenAlex, 2026-10-14) · 4 in our library, of the 141,840 papers whose bibliographies we read

## Summary
The paper asks whether "information structure" is a separate module of grammar with its own principles. It focuses on givenness and contrast and sets topicality aside. Kratzer and Selkirk argue that most of these phenomena come from two ordinary privative morphosyntactic features. [G] marks a constituent as matching something already present in the discourse. [FoC] evokes alternatives and so signals a contrast. Newness gets no grammatical marking at all: what looks like prosody for "new" information is just default prosody.

The paper is a theoretical analysis, not a corpus study. Its main evidence is typological. In languages such as Gungbe, Wolof and Ewe, focus and givenness trigger movement, agreement or ellipsis, sometimes with no prosodic reflex. This counts against metrical-tree accounts that read meaning off deviations from default stress. In Standard American and British English, the features happen to be spelled out by prosody. Both features contribute expressive (use-conditional) meaning, and their interaction explains Second Occurrence FoCus. The conclusion is that information structure does not deserve to be treated as its own field.

## Key points
- Two features are proposed. [G] signals a discourse match and contributes its meaning directly. [FoC] works like [wh]: it introduces alternatives and needs an obligatory operator.
- Crosslinguistic evidence comes from several languages:
  - Gungbe has the focus particle wɛ̀, which attracts the focused phrase to the left periphery, and speakers notice no prosodic difference.
  - Wolof has a left-peripheral landing site for contrastive focus.
  - Ewe, in Fiedler & Jannedy's phonetic study, shows no primary prosodic focus marking.
- In English, [FoC] seeks the highest prominence in the intonational phrase, while [G] has no phrase-level prosodic properties.
- A principle called Pressure for [FoC]-Marking can preempt [G]-marking. The authors leave open why either marking is obligatory, and Maximize Presuppositions is discussed as an incomplete explanation.
- Second Occurrence FoCus gets reduced prosody because a FoCused constituent sits inside a Given one. The paper appeared in Glossa 5(1): 113, 53 pages.

## Interesting ideas
- Encode givenness and contrast as explicit flags on constituents, instead of inferring them from deviations against a default pattern; this keeps interpretation compositional.
- Leave newness unmarked, so that anything not matching a prior referent and not contrasted simply falls into the default case; this avoids a redundant third label.
- A focus-marked slot defines a set of alternatives that should contain earlier propositions, as in "No, Eliza mailed the caramels."
- The pressure to signal contrast can override givenness marking, and sometimes two incompatible contrast markings are equally acceptable.
- The same abstract feature can surface as a particle, movement, ellipsis or prosody depending on the language.

## For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

- **I1** (frames): prag could attach G/FoC marks to UD subtrees based on matches with earlier discourse referents, making the discourse-coherence step inspectable.
- **I2** (world): new entities can just be introduced without a "new" tag, so the only real tests are "matches existing referent" versus "contrasts with one".
- **I3** (answer): corrections and contrasts can be resolved by swapping the focused argument into the previous frame and updating or retracting the earlier fact.
- **I4** (back): a generator choosing emphasis or cleft constructions could rank contrast above givenness and accept several valid outputs when the alternatives tie.
- **I5** (back): translation through the meta-world could carry [FoC] and [G] as language-neutral features and realize them as clefts, word order or particles in the target language.

*Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.*

## Institutions

- [University of Massachusetts Amherst](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/universities/university-of-massachusetts-amherst/) — University, Amherst Center, United States · 67 works · 64,591 citations

📚 Shelves (3): [🎭 Arts and Humanities](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/) · 9,296 works · [🗣️ Language and Linguistics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/language-and-linguistics/) · 9,206 works · [🤔 Philosophy](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/philosophy/) · 211 works

## Cite

Cite as: Angelika Kratzer and Elisabeth Selkirk. 2020. Deconstructing information structure. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work.

```bibtex
@article{kratzer2020deconstructing,
  title = {{Deconstructing information structure}},
  author = {Angelika Kratzer and Elisabeth Selkirk},
  journal = {Glossa: a journal of general linguistics},
  year = {2020},
  doi = {10.5334/gjgl.968},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.968}
}
```

- [← previous Controlled Crowdsourcing for High-Quality QA-SRL Annotation](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/roit-2020-controlled-crowdsourcing-high-quality-qa/)
- [next → Will I Sound Like Me? Improving Persona Consistency in Dialogues through Pragmatic Self-Consciousness](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/kim-2020-will-i-sound-like-me/)
- [↑ back to papers of 2020](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2020/page/5/)

## References

171 references, 2 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. Aboh, Enoch O. 2007a. Focused versus non-focused wh-phrases. In Katharina Hartmann & Malte Zimmermann (eds.), Focus strategies in African languages: The interaction of focus and grammar in Niger-Congo and Afro-Asiatic, 287−314. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199093 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199093)
2. Aboh, Enoch O. 2007b. Leftward focus versus rightward focus: The Kwa-Bantu conspiracy. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics 15. 81−104. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Aboh%2C+Enoch+O%2E+2007b%2E+Leftward+focus+versus+rightward+focus%3A+The+Kwa%2DBantu+conspiracy%2E+SOAS+Working+Papers+in+Linguistics+15%2E+81%E2%88%92104%2E)
3. Aboh, Enoch O. 2010. Information structure begins with the numeration. Iberia: An International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 2. 12−42. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Aboh%2C+Enoch+O%2E+2010%2E+Information+structure+begins+with+the+numeration%2E+Iberia%3A+An+International+Journal+of+Theoretical+Linguistics+2%2E+12%E2%88%9242%2E)
4. Aboh, Enoch O. 2016. Information structure: A cartographic perspective. In Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure, 147−164. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ oxfordhb/9780199642670.013.004 Agbayani, Brian & Chris Golston. 2010. Phonological movement in Classical Greek. Language 86. 133−167. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40666301. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1353/lan.0.0186 Agbayani, Brian & Chris Golston. 2016. Phonological constituents and their movement in Latin. Phonology 33. 1−42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675716000026 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0186)
5. Aldridge, Edith. 2018. C-T inheritance and the left periphery in Old Japanese. Glossa 3(1). 26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.254 [↗](https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.254)
6. Ameka, Felix K. 2010. Information packaging constructions in Kwa: Microvariation and typology. In Enoch O. Aboh & James Essegbey (eds.), Topics in Kwa syntax, 141−176. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3189-1_7 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3189-1_7)
7. Arregi, Karlos. 2016. Focus projection theories. In Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure, 185−202. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642670.013.005 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642670.013.005)
8. Artstein, Ron. 2004. Focus below the word level. Natural Language Semantics 12. 1−22. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23749600. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/ B:NALS.0000011145.76954.0b Bade, Nadine & Konstantin Sachs. 2019. EXH passes on alternatives: A comment on Fox and Spector (2018). Natural Language Semantics 27. 19−45. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1007/s11050-019-9149-7 Barnes, Jonathan, Nanette Veilleux, Alejna Brugos & Stephanie Shattuck-Hufnagel. 2010. Turning points, tonal targets, and the English L-phrase accent. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 25. 982−1023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/016909610035 99954 Bartels, Christine. 1999. The intonation of English statements and questions: A compositional interpretation. New York: Garland Publishing. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-019-9149-7)
9. Beaver, David, Brady Clark, Edward Stanton Flemming, T. Florian Jaeger & Maria Wolters. 2007. When semantics meets phonetics: Acoustical studies of Second-Occurrence Focus. Language 83. 245−276. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2007.0053 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2007.0053)
10. Beaver, David & Dan Velleman. 2011. The communicative significance of primary and secondary accents. Lingua 121. 1671−1692. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.04.004 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.04.004)
11. Beck, Sigrid. 2006. Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 14. 1−56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-005-4532-y [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-005-4532-y)
12. Beck, Sigrid. 2016. Focus sensitive operators. In Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure, 227−250. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Beck%2C+Sigrid%2E+2016%2E+Focus+sensitive+operators%2E+In+Caroline+F%C3%A9ry+%26+Shinichiro+Ishihara+%28eds%2E%29%2C+The+Oxford+handbook+of+information+structure%2C+227%E2%88%92250%2E+Oxford%3A+Oxford+University+Press%2E)
13. Beckman, Mary E. 1982. Segment duration and the ‘mora’ in Japanese. Phonetica 39. 113−135. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.386081 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1121/1.386081)
14. Beckman, Mary E. 1986. Stress and non-stress accent (Netherlands Phonetic Archives 7). Dordrecht: Foris. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110874020 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110874020)
15. Beckman, Mary E. & Janet B. Pierrehumbert. 1986. Intonational structure in Japanese and English. Phonology Yearbook 3. 255−309. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ S095267570000066X Belletti, Adriana. 2001. Inversion as focalization. In Aafke C. J. Hulk & Jean-Ives Pollock (eds.), Subject inversion in Romance and the theory of Universal Grammar, 60−90. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/s095267570000066x)
16. Belletti, Adriana. 2004. Aspects of the low IP area. In Luigi Rizzi (ed.), The structure of CP and IP. The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 2, 16−51. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195159486.003.0002)
17. Bennett, Ryan & Emily Elfner. 2019. The syntax-prosody interface. Annual Review of Linguistics 5. 151−171. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-012503 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-012503)
18. Bennett, Ryan, Emily Elfner & James McCloskey. 2016. Lightest to the right: An apparently anomalous displacement in Irish. Linguistic Inquiry 47. 169−234. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00209 Bianchi, Valentina. 2013. On Focus Movement in Italian. In Victoria Camacho-Taboada, Ángel L. Jiménez-Fernández, Javier Martín-González & Mariano Reyes-Tejedor (eds.), Information structure and agreement, 193−216. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/la.197.001int [↗](https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00209)
19. Bianchi, Valentina, Giuliano Bocci & Silvio Cruschina. 2016. Focus fronting, unexpectedness, and evaluative implicatures. Semantics & Pragmatics 9. 3. 1−54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.9.3 Bocci, Guiliano. 2013. The syntax-prosody interface from a cartographic perspective: Evidence from Italian. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1075/la.204 Bolinger, Dwight. 1965. Pitch accent and sentence rhythm. In Isamu Abe & Tetsuya Kanekiyo (eds), Forms of English: Accent, morpheme, order, 139−180. Tokyo: Hokuou. [↗](https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.9.3)
20. Bresnan, Joan. 1971. Sentence stress and syntactic transformations. Language 47. 257−281. https://www.jstor.org/stable/412081. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/412081 [↗](https://doi.org/10.2307/412081)
21. Büring, Daniel. 2003. On D-trees, beans, and B-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy 26. 511–545. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025887707652 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1025887707652)
22. Büring, Daniel. 2015a. A theory of Second Occurrence Focus. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience 30. 73–87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2013.835433 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2013.835433)
23. Büring, Daniel. 2015b. Unalternative Semantics. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 25. 550–575. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v25i0.3634 [↗](https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v25i0.3634)
24. Büring, Daniel. 2016. Intonation and meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226269.001.0001 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226269.001.0001)
25. Calhoun, Sasha. 2010. The centrality of metrical structure in signaling information structure: A probabilistic perspective. Language 86. 1–42. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40666298. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0197 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0197)
26. Chafe, Wallace L. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 27–55. New York: Academic Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Chafe%2C+Wallace+L%2E+1976%2E+Givenness%2C+contrastiveness%2C+definiteness%2C+subjects%2C+topics+and+point+of+view%2E+In+Charles+N%2E+Li+%28ed%2E%29%2C+Subject+and+topic%2C+27%E2%80%9355%2E+New+York%3A+Academic+Press%2E)
27. Chomsky, Noam. 1971. Deep Structure, Surface Structure, and semantic interpretation. In Danny D. Steinberg & Leon A. Jakobovits (eds.), Semantics. An interdisciplinary reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology, 183–216. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110867589-004)
28. Chomsky, Noam & Morris Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of English. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Chomsky%2C+Noam+%26+Morris+Halle%2E+1968%2E+The+sound+pattern+of+English%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+The+MIT+Press%2E)
29. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1993. A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry 24. 239–297. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178812](https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178812) [↗](https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178812)
30. Constant, Noah. 2012. Topic abstraction as the source for nested alternatives. A conservative semantics for contrastive topic. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 30, 120–130. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Constant%2C+Noah%2E+2012%2E+Topic+abstraction+as+the+source+for+nested+alternatives%2E+A+conservative+semantics+for+contrastive+topic%2E+West+Coast+Conference+on+Formal+Linguistics+%28WCCFL%29+30%2C+120%E2%80%93130%2E+Somervil)
31. Constant, Noah. 2014. Contrastive topic: Meanings and realizations. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation. [https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_2/171](https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_2/171) [↗](https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_2/171)
32. Corbett, Greville. 2012. Canonical morphosyntactic features. In Dunstan Brown, Marina Chumakina & Greville G. Corbett (eds.), Canonical morphology and syntax, 48–65. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof: oso/9780199604326.003.0003 D’Imperio, Mariapaola. 1997. Breadth of focus, modality, and prominence perception in Neapolitan Italian. OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 50. 19–39. de Lacy, Paul. 2002. The interaction of tone and stress in Optimality Theory. Phonology 19. 1–32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675702004220 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof)
33. Delfitto, Denis & Gaetano Fiorin. 2015. Exhaustivity operators and fronted focus in Italian. In Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia Hamann & Simona Matteini (eds.), Structures, strategies and beyond. Studies in honor of Adriana Belletti, 163–180. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/la.223.08del [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/la.223.08del)
34. É. Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74. 245–273. https://www.jstor.org/stable/417867. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/ lan.1998.0211 Elfner, Emily. 2012. Syntax-prosody interactions in Irish. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7275/3545-6n54 [↗](https://doi.org/10.7275/3545-6n54)
35. Elfner, Emily. 2015. Recursion in prosodic phrasing: Evidence from Connemara Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33. 1169–1208. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11049-014-9281-5 Elordieta, Gorka & Elisabeth Selkirk. 2018. Notes on prosodic headedness and tone in Tokyo Japanese, Standard English and Northern Bizkaian Basque. In Hana-bana: A Festschrift for Junko Ito and Armin Mester. Santa Cruz, CA: UC Santa Cruz Linguistics Research Center. http://itomestercelebration.sites.ucsc.edu/. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9281-5)
36. Embick, David & Rolf Noyer. 2007. Distributed Morphology and the syntax/morphology interface. In Gillian Ramchand & Charles Reiss (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, 289–324. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ oxfordhb/9780199247455.013.0010 Féry, Caroline. 2017. Intonation and Prosodic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139022064 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139022064)
37. Féry, Caroline & Vieri Samek-Lodovici. 2006. Focus projection and prosodic prominence in nested foci. Language 82. 131–150. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4490087. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0031 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0031)
38. Fiedler, Ines & Stefanie Jannedy. 2013. Prosody and focus marking in Ewe. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 34. 1–46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jall-2013-0001 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/jall-2013-0001)
39. Fox, Danny & Benjamin Spector. 2018. Economy and embedded exhaustification. Natural Language Semantics 26. 1–50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-017-9139-6 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-017-9139-6)
40. Frota, Sonia. 2000. Prosody and focus in European Portuguese: Phonological phrasing and intonation. New York: Garland Publishing. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Frota%2C+Sonia%2E+2000%2E+Prosody+and+focus+in+European+Portuguese%3A+Phonological+phrasing+and+intonation%2E+New+York%3A+Garland+Publishing%2E)
41. Green, Georgia. 1974. Semantics and syntactic regularity. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Green%2C+Georgia%2E+1974%2E+Semantics+and+syntactic+regularity%2E+Bloomington%2C+IN%3A+Indiana+University+Press%2E)
42. Green, Melanie & Philip Jaggar. 2003. Ex-situ and in-situ focus in Hausa: Syntax, semantics, and discourse. Research in Afroasiatic Grammar 2. 187–213. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.241.11gre Gribanova, Vera & Stephanie Shih. 2016. The morphosyntax-phonology connection: Locality and directionality at the interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210304.001.0001 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.241.11gre)
43. Grice, Martine, D. Robert Ladd & Amalia Arvaniti. 2000. On the place of phrase accents in intonational phonology. Phonology 17. 143–185. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0952675700003924 Gundel, Jeanette. 1988. Universals of topic–comment structure. In Michael Hammond, Edith A. Moravcsik & Jessica Wirth (eds.), Studies in Syntactic Typology, 209–299. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.17.16gun [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.17.16gun)
44. Gundel, Jeanette. 1999. On different kinds of focus. In Peter Bosch & Rob van der Sandt (eds.), Focus: Linguistic, cognitive, and computational perspectives, 293–305. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Gundel%2C+Jeanette%2E+1999%2E+On+different+kinds+of+focus%2E+In+Peter+Bosch+%26+Rob+van+der+Sandt+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Focus%3A+Linguistic%2C+cognitive%2C+and+computational+perspectives%2C+293%E2%80%93305%2E+Cambridge%3A+Cambridge+University+P)
45. Gundel, Jeanette & Thorstein Fretheim. 2004. Topic and focus. In Lawrence Horn & Gregory Ward (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatic Theory, 175–196. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756959.ch8 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756959.ch8)
46. Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1983. Focus, mode and the nucleus. Journal of Linguistics 19. 377–417. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700007799 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226700007799)
47. Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1992. Sentence accents and argument structure. In Iggy Roca (ed.), Thetic Structure: Its role in grammar, 91–106. Berlin: De Gruyter. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110872613.79)
48. Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2004. The Phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616983 Gussenhoven, Carlos, Bruno H. Repp, A. C. M. (Toni) Rietveld, Willem H. Rump & Jacques Terken. 1997. The perceptual prominence of fundamental frequency peaks. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 102. 3009–3022. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1121/1.420355 Gutzmann, Daniel. 2015. Use-conditional meaning. Studies in multidimensional semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof: oso/9780198723820.001.0001 Gutzmann, Daniel. 2019. The Grammar of expressivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198812128.001.0001 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511616983)
49. Hagstrom, Paul. 1998. Decomposing questions. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Hagstrom%2C+Paul%2E+1998%2E+Decomposing+questions%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+MIT+dissertation%2E)
50. Hagstrom, Paul. 2004. Particle movement in Sinhala and Japanese. In Veneeta Dayal & Anoop Mahajan (eds.), Clause structure in South Asian languages, 227–52. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2719-2_8 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2719-2_8)
51. Hajičová, Eva. 1994. Topic/focus and related research. In Philip A. Luelsdorff (ed.), The Prague School of Structural and Functional Linguistics, 245–275. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/llsee.41.10haj [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/llsee.41.10haj)
52. Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Kenneth Hale & Samuel J. Keyser (eds.), The view from Building 20, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Halle%2C+Morris+%26+Alec+Marantz%2E+1993%2E+Distributed+Morphology+and+the+pieces+of+inflection%2E+In+Kenneth+Hale+%26+Samuel+J%2E+Keyser+%28eds%2E%29%2C+The+view+from+Building+20%2C+111%E2%80%93176%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+The+MIT+Press%2E)
53. Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz. 1994. Some key features of Distributed Morphology. In Andrew Carnie & Heidi Harley (eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21: Papers on Phonology and Morphology, 275–288. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Halle%2C+Morris+%26+Alec+Marantz%2E+1994%2E+Some+key+features+of+Distributed+Morphology%2E+In+Andrew+Carnie+%26+Heidi+Harley+%28eds%2E%29%2C+MIT+Working+Papers+in+Linguistics+21%3A+Papers+on+Phonology+and+Morphology%2C+275%E2%80%932)
54. Halle, Morris & Jean Roger Vergnaud. 1987. An Essay on Stress. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Halle%2C+Morris+%26+Jean+Roger+Vergnaud%2E+1987%2E+An+Essay+on+Stress%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+The+MIT+Press%2E)
55. Hamblin, Charles L. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10. 41–53. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Hamblin%2C+Charles+L%2E+1973%2E+Questions+in+Montague+English%2E+Foundations+of+Language+10%2E+41%E2%80%9353%2E)
56. Harley, Heidi. 1995. Subjects, events, and licensing. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Harley%2C+Heidi%2E+1995%2E+Subjects%2C+events%2C+and+licensing%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+MIT+dissertation%2E)
57. Harley, Heidi. 2002. Possession and the double object construction. Yearbook of Linguistic Variation 2. 29–68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/livy.2.04har [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/livy.2.04har)
58. Hartmann, Katharina & Malte Zimmermann. 2007. In place – out of place: Focus in Hausa. In Kerstin Schwabe & Susanne Winkler (eds.), On information structure: Meaning and form, 365–403. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/la.100.20har Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical Stress Theory. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/la.100.20har)
59. Hayes, Bruce & Aditi Lahiri. 1991. Bengali intonational phonology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9. 47–96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133326 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00133326)
60. Hedberg, Nancy. 1990. Discourse pragmatics and cleft sentences in English. Twin Cities, MN: University of Minnesota dissertation. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133326 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00133326)
61. Hedberg, Nancy. 2010. The referential status of clefts. Language 76. 891–920. https://www.jstor.org/stable/417203. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/417203 [↗](https://doi.org/10.2307/417203)
62. Hedberg, Nancy. 2013. Multiple focus and cleft sentences. In Katharina Hartmann & Teun Veenstra (eds.), Cleft structures, 227–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/la.208.08hed [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/la.208.08hed)
63. Heim, Irene. 1991. Artikel und Definitheit. In Arnim von Stechow & Dieter Wunderlich (eds.), Semantik/Semantics. An international handbook of contemporary research, 487–535. Berlin: De Gruyter. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110126969.7.487)
64. Hellmuth, Sam. 2006. Intonational pitch accent distribution in Egyptian Arabic. London: University of London (SOAS) dissertation. [↗](https://doi.org/10.25501/soas.00028680)
65. Hellmuth, Sam. 2007. The relationship between Prosodic Structure and pitch accent distribution: Evidence from Egyptian Arabic. The Linguistic Review 24. 289–314. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/TLR.2007.011 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr.2007.011)
66. Horvath, Julia. 2010. “Discourse features”, syntactic displacement, and the status of contrast. Lingua 120. 1346–1369. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.07. 011 Hualde, José Ignacio, Gorka Elordieta & Arantzazu Elordieta. 1994. The Basque dialect of Lekeitio (Supplements of Anuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca “Julio de Urquijo” XXXIV). Bilbao & Donostia-San Sebastián: Universidad del País Vasco & Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.07.​)
67. Hyman, Larry. 2011. Tone: Is it different? In John Goldsmith, Jason Riggle & Alan Yu (eds.), The handbook of Phonological Theory, 2 nd Edition, 197–239. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444343069.ch7 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444343069.ch7)
68. Hyman, Larry. 2019. Functions of vowel length in language: Phonological, grammatical and pragmatic consequences. Talk delivered to the London Philological Society, February 15. London: SOAS. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Hyman%2C+Larry%2E+2019%2E+Functions+of+vowel+length+in+language%3A+Phonological%2C+grammatical+and+pragmatic+consequences%2E+Talk+delivered+to+the+London+Philological+Society%2C+February+15%2E+London%3A+SOAS%2E)
69. Ikawa, Hajime. 1998. On kakarimusubi in Old Japanese. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 16. 1–38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jjl-1998-0103 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/jjl-1998-0103)
70. Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2007. Major Phrase, focus intonation, and Multiple Spell-Out. The Linguistic Review 24. 137–167. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/TLR.2007.006 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr.2007.006)
71. Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2011. Japanese focus prosody revisited: Freeing focus from prosodic phrasing. Lingua 121. 1870–1889. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.06. 008 Ito, Junko & Armin Mester. 2012. Recursive prosodic phrasing in Japanese. In Toni Borowsky, Shigeto Kawahara, Mariko Sugahara & Takahito Shinya (eds.), Prosody matters. Essays in honor of Elisabeth Selkirk, 280–203. London: Equinox. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.06.​)
72. Ito, Junko & Armin Mester. 2013. Prosodic subcategories in Japanese. Lingua 124. 20–40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.08.016 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.08.016)
73. Ito, Junko & Armin Mester. 2016. Unaccentedness in Japanese. Linguistic Inquiry 47. 471–526. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00219 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00219)
74. Jackendoff, Ray S. 1972. Semantic interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Jackendoff%2C+Ray+S%2E+1972%2E+Semantic+interpretation+in+Generative+Grammar%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+The+MIT+Press%2E)
75. Jaggar, Philipp. 2006. More on in situ WH- and focus constructions in Hausa. In Dymitr Ibriszimow, Henry Tourneux & Ekkehard Wolff (eds.), Chadic Linguistics/Linguistique Tchadique/Tschadistik, 49–73. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Jaggar%2C+Philipp%2E+2006%2E+More+on+in+situ+WH%2D+and+focus+constructions+in+Hausa%2E+In+Dymitr+Ibriszimow%2C+Henry+Tourneux+%26+Ekkehard+Wolff+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Chadic+Linguistics%2FLinguistique+Tchadique%2FTschadistik%2C+49%E2%80%9373%2E)
76. Jun, Sun-Ah (ed.). 2005. Prosodic typology I: The phonology of intonation and phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof: oso/9780199567300.001.0001 Jun, Sun-Ah (ed.). 2014. Prosodic typology II: The phonology of intonation and phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof)
77. Kabagema-Bilan, Elena, Beatriz López-Jiménez & Hubert Truckenbrodt. 2011. Multiple focus in Mandarin Chinese. Lingua 121. 1890–1905. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. lingua.2011.02.005 Kager, René. 2001. Rhythmic directionality by positional licensing. Fifth Holland Institute of Linguistics Phonology conference. Rutgers Optimality Archive 514. http://roa.rutgers. edu/files/514-0402/514-0402-KAGER-0-0.PDF Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan. 2009. The syntax of sentential stress. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199219230.001.0001 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j)
78. Kaplan, David. 1999. The meaning of ‘Ouch’ and ‘Oops’. Cornell conference on context dependency. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Video: [https://youtu.be/iaGRLlgPl6w](https://youtu.be/iaGRLlgPl6w). [↗](https://youtu.be/iaGRLlgPl6w)
79. Katz, Jonah & Elisabeth Selkirk. 2011. Contrastive focus vs. discourse-new: Evidence from phonetic prominence in English. Language 87. 771–816. https://www.jstor.org/ stable/41348860. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2011.0076 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2011.0076)
80. Katzir, Roni. 2013. A note on contrast. Natural Language Semantics 21. 333–343. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-013-9095-8 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-013-9095-8)
81. Keating, Patricia, Taehong Cho, Cécile Fougeron, and Chai-shune Hsu. 2004. Domain-initial articulatory strengthening in four languages. In John Local, Richard Ogden & Rosalind Temple (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology 6. 143–161. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Keating%2C+Patricia%2C+Taehong+Cho%2C+C%C3%A9cile+Fougeron%2C+and+Chai%2Dshune+Hsu%2E+2004%2E+Domain%2Dinitial+articulatory+strengthening+in+four+languages%2E+In+John+Local%2C+Richard+Ogden+%26+Rosalind+Temple+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Papers+in)
82. Kiparsky, Paul. 2000. Opacity and cyclicity. The Linguistic Review 17. 351–367. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2000.17.2-4.351 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2000.17.2-4.351)
83. Kishimoto, Hideki. 2018. Sinhala focus concord constructions from a discourse-syntactic perspective. Glossa 3(1). 9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.260 [↗](https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.260)
84. Kisseberth, Charles. 1984. Digo tonology. In G. Nick Clements & John A. Goldsmith (eds.), Studies in Bantu tonology, 105–182. Dordrecht: Foris. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Kisseberth%2C+Charles%2E+1984%2E+Digo+tonology%2E+In+G%2E+Nick+Clements+%26+John+A%2E+Goldsmith+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Studies+in+Bantu+tonology%2C+105%E2%80%93182%2E+Dordrecht%3A+Foris%2E)
85. Kratzer, Angelika. 1999. Beyond ‘ouch’ and ‘oops’. Cornell conference on context dependency. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. [https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WEwN-GUyO/](https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WEwN-GUyO/) [↗](https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WEwN-GUyO/)
86. Kratzer, Angelika. 2004. Interpreting focus: Presupposed or expressive meanings? Theoretical Linguistics 30. 123–136. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2004.002 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2004.002)
87. Kratzer, Angelika & Elisabeth Selkirk. 2019. New vs. given. In Daniel Altshuler & Jessica Rett (eds.), The semantics of plurals, focus, degrees, and times. Essays in honor of Roger Schwarzschild, 157–162. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04438-1_8 Krifka, Manfred. 2008. Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55. 243–276. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3-4.2 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04438-1_8)
88. Kučerová, Ivona. 2012. Grammatical marking of givenness. Natural Language Semantics 20. 1–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-011-9073-y [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-011-9073-y)
89. Kügler, Frank & Caroline Féry. 2017. Post-focal downstep in German. Language and Speech 60. 260–288. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830916647204 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830916647204)
90. Kula, Nancy C. & Lee S. Bickmore. 2015. Phrasal phonology in Copperbelt Bemba. Phonology 32. 146–176. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S095267571500007X [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/s095267571500007x)
91. Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 2007. On the syntax of Old Japanese. In Bjarke Frellesvig, Masayoshi Shibatani & John Charles Smith (eds.), Current issues in the history and structure of Japanese, 263–317. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Kuroda%2C+Sige%2DYuki%2E+2007%2E+On+the+syntax+of+Old+Japanese%2E+In+Bjarke+Frellesvig%2C+Masayoshi+Shibatani+%26+John+Charles+Smith+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Current+issues+in+the+history+and+structure+of+Japanese%2C+263%E2%80%93317%2E+Tokyo%3A+)
92. Kusmer, Leland. 2019. Optimal linearization: Prosodic displacement in Khoekhoe and beyond. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7275/ d1w2-fp34 Ladd, Robert D. 1980. The structure of intonational meaning. Evidence from English. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. [↗](https://doi.org/10.7275/)
93. Ladd, Robert D. 1996. Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ladd%2C+Robert+D%2E+1996%2E+Intonational+phonology%2E+Cambridge%3A+Cambridge+University+Press%2E)
94. Ladd, Robert D. 2008. Intonational phonology. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808814 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511808814)
95. Liberman, Mark & Alan Prince. 1977. On stress and linguistic rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 249–336. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Liberman%2C+Mark+%26+Alan+Prince%2E+1977%2E+On+stress+and+linguistic+rhythm%2E+Linguistic+Inquiry+8%2E+249%E2%80%93336%2E)
96. Martinovič, Martina. 2015. Information structure of copular sentences in Wolof. Selected proceedings of the 44th annual conference on African Linguistics, 165–179. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Martinovi%C4%8D%2C+Martina%2E+2015%2E+Information+structure+of+copular+sentences+in+Wolof%2E+Selected+proceedings+of+the+44th+annual+conference+on+African+Linguistics%2C+165%E2%80%93179%2E+Somerville%2C+MA%3A+Cascadilla%2E)
97. McCarthy, John J. 2003. OT constraints are categorical. Phonology 20. 75–138. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675703004470 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/s0952675703004470)
98. McCarthy, John J. & Alan Prince. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18: Papers in Optimality Theory. [↗](https://doi.org/10.7282/t31r6nj9)
99. McCarthy, John J. & Alan Prince. 1999. Faithfulness and identity in Prosodic Morphology. In René Kager, Harry van der Hulst & Wim Zonneveld (eds.), The Prosody-Morphology interface, 218–309. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511627729.008 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511627729.008)
100. McCready, Elin. 2010. [Varieties of conventional implicature](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/mccready-2010-varieties-conventional-implicature/). Semantics & Pragmatics 3(8). 1–57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.3.8 [↗](https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.3.8)
101. Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence. Sluicing, islands and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199243730.001.0001)
102. Merchant, Jason. 2019. Ellipsis: A survey of analytical approaches. In Jeroen van Craenenbrouck & Tanja Temmerman (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ellipsis, 18–46. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/978019871 2398.013.2 Molnár, Valéria. 2001. Contrast from a contrastive perspective. In Ivana Kruijff-Korbayová & Mark Steedman (eds.), Information structure, discourse structure and discourse semantics, 99–114. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/978019871​)
103. Molnár, Valéria. 2006. On different kinds of contrast. In Valéria Molnár & Susanne Winkler (eds.), The architecture of focus, 197–233. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110922011 Molnár, Valéria & Susanne Winkler. 2010. Edges and gaps: Contrast at the interfaces. Lingua 120. 1329–1415. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.08.010 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110922011)
104. Myers, Scott. 1997. OCP effects in Optimality Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15. 847–892. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4047901. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1023/A:1005875608905 Neeleman, Ad & Kriszta Szendrői. 2004. Superman sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 35. 149–159. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2004.35.1.149 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1005875608905)
105. Nespor, Marina & Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Nespor%2C+Marina+%26+Irene+Vogel%2E+1986%2E+Prosodic+phonology%2E+Dordrecht%3A+Foris%2E)
106. Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1980. The phonetics and phonology of English intonation. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Pierrehumbert%2C+Janet%2E+1980%2E+The+phonetics+and+phonology+of+English+intonation%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+MIT+dissertation%2E)
107. Pierrehumbert, Janet & Mary Beckman. 1988. Japanese tone structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Pierrehumbert%2C+Janet+%26+Mary+Beckman%2E+1988%2E+Japanese+tone+structure%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+The+MIT+Press%2E)
108. Pierrehumbert, Janet & Julia Hirschberg. 1990. The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In Philip R. Cohen, Jerry Morgan & Martha E. Pollack (eds.), Intentions in communication, 271–311. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. [↗](https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3839.003.0016)
109. Potts, Christopher. 2005. The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199273829.001.0001 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199273829.001.0001)
110. Prince, Alan. 1983. Relating to the grid. Linguistic Inquiry 14. 19–100. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178311](https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178311) Prince, Alan & Paul Smolensky. 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in Generative Grammar. Ms. Rutgers University & University of Colorado at Boulder. [↗](https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178311)
111. Prince, Ellen. 1978. A comparison of wh-clefts and it-clefts in discourse. Language 54. 883–906. https://www.jstor.org/stable/413238. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/413238 [↗](https://doi.org/10.2307/413238)
112. Reinhart, Tanya. 2006. Interface strategies: Optimal and costly computations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3846.001.0001 [↗](https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3846.001.0001)
113. Rialland, Annie & Stéphane Robert. 2001. The intonational system of Wolof. Linguistics 39. 893–939. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2001.038 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2001.038)
114. Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar, 281–337. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7)
115. Roberts, Craige. 1996. Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. OSUWPL 49: Papers in Semantics, 91–136. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Roberts%2C+Craige%2E+1996%2E+Information+structure%3A+Towards+an+integrated+formal+theory+of+pragmatics%2E+OSUWPL+49%3A+Papers+in+Semantics%2C+91%E2%80%93136%2E)
116. Roberts, Craige. 2012. [Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/roberts-2012-information-structure-discourse-towards-integrated/). Semantics & Pragmatics 5(6). 1–69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.6 [↗](https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.6)
117. Rochemont, Michael. 1986. Focus in Generative Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/sigla.4 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/sigla.4)
118. Rochemont, Michael. 2013a. Discourse new, focused, and given. In Johan Brandtler, Valéria Molnár & Christer Platzack (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian, vol.13 (Papers from the 2011 Lund conference), 199–228. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/atoh.13.10roc)
119. Rochemont, Michael. 2013b. Discourse new, F-marking, and normal stress. Lingua 136. 38–62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2013.07.016 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2013.07.016)
120. Rochemont, Michael. 2016. Givenness. In Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure, 41–63. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642670.013.18 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642670.013.18)
121. Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Rooth%2C+Mats%2E+1985%2E+Association+with+focus%2E+Amherst%2C+MA%3A+University+of+Massachusetts+dissertation%2E)
122. Rooth, Mats. 1992a. A Theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1. 75–116. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02342617 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02342617)
123. Rooth, Mats. 1992b. Ellipsis redundancy and reduction redundancy. Ms. Stuttgart: Institut für maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Rooth%2C+Mats%2E+1992b%2E+Ellipsis+redundancy+and+reduction+redundancy%2E+Ms%2E+Stuttgart%3A+Institut+f%C3%BCr+maschinelle+Sprachverarbeitung%2E)
124. Rooth, Mats. 2015. Representing focus scoping over new. Northeastern Linguistic Society (NELS) 45. 1–15. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Rooth%2C+Mats%2E+2015%2E+Representing+focus+scoping+over+new%2E+Northeastern+Linguistic+Society+%28NELS%29+45%2E+1%E2%80%9315%2E)
125. Rooth, Mats. 2016. Alternative Semantics. In Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure, 19–40. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642670.013.19 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642670.013.19)
126. Samko, Bern. 2016. Syntax and information structure: The grammar of English inversions. Santa Cruz, CA: University of California dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Samko%2C+Bern%2E+2016%2E+Syntax+and+information+structure%3A+The+grammar+of+English+inversions%2E+Santa+Cruz%2C+CA%3A+University+of+California+dissertation%2E)
127. Schlenker, Philippe. 2007. Expressive presuppositions. Theoretical Linguistics 33. 237–245. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/TL.2007.017 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/tl.2007.017)
128. Schmerling, Susan F. 1976. Aspects of English sentence stress. University of Texas Press. [↗](https://doi.org/10.7560/703124)
129. Schwarzschild, Roger. 1993. The contrastiveness of associated foci. Ms. Rutgers University. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Schwarzschild%2C+Roger%2E+1993%2E+The+contrastiveness+of+associated+foci%2E+Ms%2E+Rutgers+University%2E)
130. Schwarzschild, Roger. 1999. GIVENness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of focus. Natural Language Semantics 7. 141–77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008370902407 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1008370902407)
131. Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1984. Phonology and syntax. The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Selkirk%2C+Elisabeth%2E+1984%2E+Phonology+and+syntax%2E+The+relation+between+sound+and+structure%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+The+MIT+Press%2E)
132. Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1995. Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress and phrasing. In John A. Goldsmith (ed.), The handbook of Phonological Theory, 550–569. Oxford: Blackwell. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Selkirk%2C+Elisabeth%2E+1995%2E+Sentence+prosody%3A+Intonation%2C+stress+and+phrasing%2E+In+John+A%2E+Goldsmith+%28ed%2E%29%2C+The+handbook+of+Phonological+Theory%2C+550%E2%80%93569%2E+Oxford%3A+Blackwell%2E)
133. Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1996. The prosodic structure of function words. In Jerry L. Morgan & Katherine Demuth (eds.), Signal to syntax: Bootstrapping from speech to grammar in early acquisition, 187–213. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Selkirk%2C+Elisabeth%2E+1996%2E+The+prosodic+structure+of+function+words%2E+In+Jerry+L%2E+Morgan+%26+Katherine+Demuth+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Signal+to+syntax%3A+Bootstrapping+from+speech+to+grammar+in+early+acquisition%2C+187%E2%80%93213%2E+)
134. Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2000. The interaction of constraints on prosodic phrasing. In Merle Horne (ed.), Prosody: Theory and experiment, 281–261. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9413-4_9 Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2002. Contrastive FOCUS vs. Presentational Focus: Prosodic evidence from Right Node Raising in English. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9413-4_9)
135. Speech Prosody 2002. Aix-en-Provence. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Speech+Prosody+2002%2E+Aix%2Den%2DProvence%2E)
136. Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2007. Bengali intonation revisited: An Optimality Theoretic analysis in which FOCUS stress prominence drives FOCUS phrasing. In Chungmin Lee, Matthew Gordon & Daniel Büring (eds.), Topic and Focus, 215–244. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4796-1_12 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4796-1_12)
137. Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2008. Contrastive focus, givenness, and the unmarked status of “discourse-new”. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55. 1–16. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26190911. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3-4.8 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1556/aling.55.2008.3-4.8)
138. Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2009. On Clause and Intonational Phrase in Japanese: The syntactic grounding of prosodic constituent structure. Gengo Kenkyu 136. 35–74. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Selkirk%2C+Elisabeth%2E+2009%2E+On+Clause+and+Intonational+Phrase+in+Japanese%3A+The+syntactic+grounding+of+prosodic+constituent+structure%2E+Gengo+Kenkyu+136%2E+35%E2%80%9374%2E)
139. Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2011. The syntax-phonology interface. In John A. Goldsmith, Jason Riggle & Alan Yu (eds.), The handbook of Phonological Theory. 2nd Edition, 435–484. Oxford: Wiley. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444343069.ch14 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444343069.ch14)
140. Selkirk, Elisabeth & Seunghun J. Lee (eds.). 2015. Constituency in sentence phonology. Special issue of Phonology 32(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675715000 020 Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie & Alice Turk. 1996. A prosody tutorial for investigators of auditory sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 25. 193–247. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01708572 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/s0952675715000​)
141. Šimík, Radek & Marta Wierzba. 2015. The role of givenness, presupposition, and prosody in Czech word order: An experimental study. Semantics and Pragmatics 8(3). 1–103. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.8.3 [↗](https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.8.3)
142. Slade, Benjamin. 2018. History of focus-concord constructions and focus-associated particles in Sinhala, with comparison to Dravidian and Japanese. Glossa 3(1). 2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.241 [↗](https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.241)
143. Sugahara, Mariko. 2012. Phonetic evidence for prosodic word prominence. In Toni Borowsky, Shigeto Kawahara, Mariko Sugahara & Takahito Shinya (eds.), Prosody matters: Essays in honor of Elisabeth Selkirk, 208–231. London: Equinox. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Sugahara%2C+Mariko%2E+2012%2E+Phonetic+evidence+for+prosodic+word+prominence%2E+In+Toni+Borowsky%2C+Shigeto+Kawahara%2C+Mariko+Sugahara+%26+Takahito+Shinya+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Prosody+matters%3A+Essays+in+honor+of+Elisabeth+Selk)
144. Szabolcsi, Anna. 1981. Compositionality in focus. Folia Linguistica 15. 141–161. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.1981.15.1-2.141 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.1981.15.1-2.141)
145. Szendrői, Kriszta. 2001. Focus and the syntax-phonology interface. London: University College London dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Szendr%C5%91i%2C+Kriszta%2E+2001%2E+Focus+and+the+syntax%2Dphonology+interface%2E+London%3A+University+College+London+dissertation%2E)
146. Szendrői, Kriszta. 2017a. Focus movement. In Martin Everaert & Henk V. Riemsdijk (eds.), The Wiley Blackwell companion to syntax, 2nd edition. Oxford: Wiley. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom100 Szendrői, Kriszta. 2017b. The syntax of information structure and the PF interface. Glossa 2(1). 32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.140 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom100)
147. Tancredi, Christopher. 1992. Deletion, deaccenting, and presupposition. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Tancredi%2C+Christopher%2E+1992%2E+Deletion%2C+deaccenting%2C+and+presupposition%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+MIT+dissertation%2E)
148. Torreira, Francisco & Martine Grice. 2018. Melodic constructions in Spanish: M etrical structure determines the association properties of intonational tones. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 48, special issue 1. 9–32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100317000603 Torrence, Harold. 2013. A promotion analysis of Wolof clefts. Syntax 16. 176–215. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12000 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/s0025100317000603)
149. Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1995. Phonological phrases – their relation to syntax, focus, and prominence. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Truckenbrodt%2C+Hubert%2E+1995%2E+Phonological+phrases+%E2%80%93+their+relation+to+syntax%2C+focus%2C+and+prominence%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+MIT+dissertation%2E)
150. Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1999. On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic Inquiry 30. 219–255. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/002438999554048 Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2002. Upstep and embedded register levels. Phonology 19. 77–120. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S095267570200427X [↗](https://doi.org/10.1162/002438999554048)
151. Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2004. Final lowering in non-final position. Journal of Phonetics 32. 313–348. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2003.11.001 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2003.11.001)
152. Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2006. Phrasal stress. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edition, 572–579. Oxford: Elsevier. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ B0-08-044854-2/04447-3 Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2007a. The syntax-phonology interface. In Paul de Lacy (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of phonology, 435–56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486371.019 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511486371.019)
153. Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2007b. Upstep of edge tones and of nuclear accents. In Carlos Gussenhoven & Thomas Riad (eds.), Tones and tunes. Vol. 2: Experimental studies in word and sentence prosody, 349–86. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110207576.2.349 Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2012a. On the prosody of German wh-questions. In Gorka Elordieta & Pilar Prieto (eds.), Prosody and meaning, 73–118. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110207576.2.349)
154. Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2012b. Semantics of intonation. In Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics. An international handbook of natural language meaning. Vol. 3, 2039–2069. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Truckenbrodt%2C+Hubert%2E+2012b%2E+Semantics+of+intonation%2E+In+Claudia+Maienborn%2C+Klaus+von+Heusinger+%26+Paul+Portner+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Semantics%2E+An+international+handbook+of+natural+language+meaning%2E+Vol%2E+3%2C+2039%E2%80%9320)
155. Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2016. Focus, intonation, and tonal height. In Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure, 461–482. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ oxfordhb/9780199642670.013.44 Vallduví, Enric. 2016. Information structure. In Maria Aloni & Paul Dekker (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Formal Semantics, 728–55. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139236157.024 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139236157.024)
156. Vallduví, Enric & Maria Vilkuna. 1998. On Rheme and Kontrast. In Peter Culicover & Louise McNally (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 29. The limits of syntax, 79–108. San Diego: Academic Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004373167_005 van den Berg, Rob, Carlos Gussenhoven, & Toni Rietveld. 1992. Downstep in Dutch: Implications for a model. In Gerard J. Docherty & D. Robert Ladd (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology II: Gesture, segment, prosody, 335–358. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. van der Wal, Jenneke. 2016. Diagnosing focus. Studies in Language 40. 259–301. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.40.2.01van [↗](https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004373167_005)
157. Volk, Erez. 2011. Mijikenda tonology. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University dissertation. von Fintel, Kai. 1994. Restrictions on Quantifier Domains. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation. [https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations/](https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations/) AAI9434544 [↗](https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations/)
158. Wagner, Michael. 2005. Prosody and recursion. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Wagner%2C+Michael%2E+2005%2E+Prosody+and+recursion%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+MIT+dissertation%2E)
159. Wagner, Michael. 2012. Focus and givenness: A unified approach. In Ivona Kučerová & Ad Neeleman (eds.), Contrasts and positions in information structure, 102–47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511740084.007 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511740084.007)
160. Whitman, John. 1997. Kakarimusubi from a comparative perspective. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 6, Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Whitman%2C+John%2E+1997%2E+Kakarimusubi+from+a+comparative+perspective%2E+Japanese%2FKorean+Linguistics+6%2C+Stanford%3A+Center+for+the+Study+of+Language+and+Information%2E)
161. Williams, Edwin. 1997. Blocking and anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 28. 577–628. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Williams%2C+Edwin%2E+1997%2E+Blocking+and+anaphora%2E+Linguistic+Inquiry+28%2E+577%E2%80%93628%2E)
162. Williams, Edwin. 2012. The locality of focusing and the coherence of anaphora. In Ivona Kučerová & Ad Neeleman (eds.), Contrasts and positions in information structure, 148–74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511740084.008 Winkler, Susanne. 2016. Ellipsis and information structure. In Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure, 359–82. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642670.013.31 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642670.013.31)
163. Xu, Yi. 1999. Effects of tone and focus on the formation and alignment of F0 contours. Journal of Phonetics 27. 55–105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.1999.0086 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.1999.0086)
164. Yip, Moira. 2002. Tone. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486371.011 Yip, Moira. 2007. Tone. In Paul de Lacy (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of phonology, 229–251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511486371.011)
165. Zimmermann, Malte. 2011. The grammatical expression of focus in West Chadic: Variation and uniformity in and across languages. Linguistics 49. 1161–1211. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.032 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.032)
166. Zubizarreta, María Luisa. 1998. Prosody, focus, and word order. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Zubizarreta%2C+Mar%C3%ADa+Luisa%2E+1998%2E+Prosody%2C+focus%2C+and+word+order%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+The+MIT+Press%2E)
167. Zubizarreta, María Luisa. 2016. Nuclear stress and information structure. In Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure, 163–84. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Zubizarreta%2C+Mar%C3%ADa+Luisa%2E+2016%2E+Nuclear+stress+and+information+structure%2E+In+Caroline+F%C3%A9ry+%26+Shinichiro+Ishihara+%28eds%2E%29%2C+The+Oxford+handbook+of+information+structure%2C+163%E2%80%9384%2E+Oxford%3A+Oxford+University)
168. Zubizarreta, María Luisa & Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 2006. Phrasal stress and syntax. In Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (ed.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, 522–568. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996591. ch49 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996591)
169. How to cite this article: Kratzer, Angelika and Elisabeth Selkirk. 2020. Deconstructing information structure. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 5(1): 113. 1–53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.968 [↗](https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.968)
170. Published: 20 November 2020 [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Published%3A+20+November+2020)
171. Copyright: © 2020 The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Glossa: a journal of general linguistics is a peer-reviewed open access journal published by Ubiquity Press. OPEN ACCESS [↗](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

*Updated 24 October 2026*