Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T07:45:26.671Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Focus projection and prosodic prominence in nested foci

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Caroline Féry and
Vieri Samek-Lodovici
Caroline Féry*
Affiliation:
University of Potsdam
Vieri Samek-Lodovici*
Affiliation:
University College London
*
Féry, University of Potsdam, Institut für Linguistik, PO 605315, 14415 Potsdam, Germany, [caroline.fery@gmail.com]
Samek-Lodovici, University College London, Italian Department, Gower Street, WC1A-6BT London, United Kingdom, [ucljvsl@ucl.ac.uk]
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Information

Type
Discussion Notes
Information
Language , Volume 82 , Issue 1 , March 2006, pp. 131 - 150
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

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

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Büring, Daniel. 1997. The 49th bridge accent. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2001. Let's phrase it! Focus, word order, and prosodic phrasing in German double object constructions. Competition in syntax, ed. by Müller, Gereon and Sternefeld, Wolfgang, 69–105. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2003. Focus projection and default prominence. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, ms.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel, and Gutíerrez-Bravo, Rodrigo. 2002. Focus-related word order variation without the NSR: A prosody-based cross-linguistic analysis. Syntax at Santa Cruz 3, ed. by Mac Bloscaidh, Séamas, 41–58. Santa Cruz, CA: University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Dehé, Nicole. 2004. On the order of objects in Icelandic double object constructions. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 16. 85–108.Google Scholar
Downing, Laura. 2003. Stress, tone and focus in Chichewa and Xhosa. Stress and tone: The African experience (Frankfurter Afrikanistische Blätter 15), ed. by Anyanwu, Rose-Juliet, 59–81. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline. 2006. The prosody of topicalization. On information structure, meaning and form, ed. by Winkler, Susanne and Schwabe, Kerstin. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, to appear.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline, and Hartmann, Katharina. 2005. Focus and prosodic structures of German gapping and right node raising. The Linguistic Review 22. 79–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghini, Mirco. 1993. θ-formation in Italian: A new proposal. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 12. 41–78.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1992. Sentence accents and argument structure. Thematic structure: Its role in grammar, ed. by Roca, Iggy, 79–106. Berlin: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2004. The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1970. A course in spoken English: Intonation. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hartmann, Katharina. 2000. Right node raising and gapping: Interface conditions on prosodic deletion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kanerva, Jonni M. 1990a. Focus and phrasing in Chichewa phonology. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Kanerva, Jonni M. 1990b. Focus on phonological phrases in Chichewa. The phonology-syntax connection, ed. by Inkelas, Sharon and Zec, Draga, 145–62. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 1980. The structure of intonational meaning: Evidence from English. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 1996. Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J., and Prince, Alan S.. 1993. Generalized alignment. Yearbook of Morphology 1993. 79–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, Ad, and Szendrői, Kriszta. 2004. Superman sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 35. 149–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nespor, Marina, and Vogel, Irene. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1980. The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan, and Smolensky, Paul. 1993. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, and Boulder: University of Colorado, ms.Google Scholar
Rochemont, Michael. 1986. Focus in generative grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1. 75–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samek-Lodovici, Vieri. 2005. Prosody-syntax interaction in the expression of focus. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23. 687–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger. 1999. GIVENness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics 7. 141–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1984. Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1995. Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress and phrasing. The handbook of phonological theory, ed. by Goldsmith, John, 550–69. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 2000. The interaction of constraints on prosodic phrasing. Prosody: Theory and experiment, ed. by Horne, Merle, 231–61. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Szendrői, Kriszta. 2001. Focus and the syntax-phonology interface. London: University College London dissertation.Google Scholar
Szendrői, Kriszta. 2003. A stress-based approach to the syntax of Hungarian focus. Linguistic Review 20. 37–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1995. Phonological phrases: Their relation to syntax, focus and prominence. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1999. On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic Inquiry 30. 219–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zubizaretta, Maria Luisa. 1998. Prosody, focus and word order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar