Towards a Typology of Focus Realization

Daniel Buring (UCLA)

buring@humnet.ucla.edu

1 Introduction

This paper presents a first attempt to outline a cross-linguistic theory of focusrealization, that is, of how different languages express focussing. My pointof departure is what I will call the prominence theory of focus realization,henceforth PTF, pioneered in Truckenbrodt (1995). The idea behind thisapproach is that focus is always realized by prosodic prominence, and that theonly way focus interacts with the formation of prosodic structure is througha constraint FocusProminence:

(1) FocusProminence (FocProm):Focus needs to be maximally prominent.

I will show how the PTF can account for languages in which focus is realizedby pitch accent (as in English), as well as languages in which it is realized byprosodic phrasing, constituent order variation, or a mixture of all of these. Iwill then discuss its applicability to languages that realize focus by specificmorphemes, as well as specific positions.

1.1 The Notion of Focus

All of the sentences in (2) will elicit an utterance of (3) with focus on thedirect object, as does the context in (4):

0Parts of this paper are based on joint work I did in the summer of 2005 with KatharinaHartmann and Malte Zimmermann as a guest of the SFB632 project B2, Focus in Chadic

Languages in Berlin. I’d like to thank them for generously sharing their data and ideas withme. Thanks also to the participants at the workshop on focus at the National Institute ofInformatics in Tokyo in November 2005, especially Chris Tancredi and Makoto Kanazawa,who made that wonderful meeting possible.

1

(2) a. What do you put in your pasta sauce?b. What was it that you put in your pasta sauce?c. Do you put tarragon, or thyme in your pasta sauce? q/a focusd. Do you put tarragon in your pasta sauce?e. Daniel puts tarragon in his pasta sauce. correctionf. First, I put tarragon in my pasta sauce, then. . . contrast

(3) I put [thyme]F in my pasta sauce.

(4) I put [thyme]F in my pasta sauce, not tarragon.

For the purpose of this paper, I assume that there is only one grammaticaltype of focus, which encompasses all the different uses above, some of whichI have labelled as ‘question/answer’, ‘correction’ and so forth. This strikesme as an attractive hypothesis, albeit one that many would disagree with.For the purpose at hand, it is also forced upon me, since I rely on a lot ofdifferent sources from the literature, which between them use all of the abovecontext types to elicit their data.

1.2 A First Classification

A first classification of languages according to how they realize focus maydistinguish three strategies for marking focus: prosodic (you put the nuclearaccent on the focus), syntactic (you put the focus in a particular position)and morphological (you put some morphological marker on the focus).

In the present paper, I will aim at a more refined typology. In particular,we will see that the above strategies of realizing focus are often mixed, andin many cases should be viewed as different means to achieve the same end:acquiring prominence.

1.3 Prosodic Prominence

What does it mean for a focus to be prominent? As a starting point, I willdefine prominence in prosodic terms, using a hierarchy of prosodic units:one or more syllables form a prosodic word, one or more PWds form a big-ger prosodic unit (variously called accent(ual) domain/phrase, intermediatephrase, major phrase etc.; I’ll use p(onological)P(hrase) here); one or more ofthose form an intonational phrase (IP) and so forth. Among the immediateconstituents (or ‘daughters’) of a given unit, one is its head . If you think

2

of prosodic constituent structure as a tree, this means that each node hasexactly one strong daughter, marked by a +:

(5) IP

-

pP

+

PWd

-

PWd

-

pP

+

PWd

+

pP

+

PWd

-

PWd

If you think of it as a bracketed string, each constituent at each level has onegrid mark * marking (the head of) its head:

(6)

(

(

(*

PWd)(PWd)

)(

(*

PWd)

)(

(

**

PWd)(PWd

)IP)pP

)PWd

At each level, the head (marked by +/*) is by definition the most prominentdaughter. What effect this will have on the phonetic realization of the stringvaries from language to language, as we will see.

In order to formulate an account of focus realization in a given languagewe’ll first have to define its default prosodic structure. This involves at leastthe following two components:

• define the ‘normal’ mapping from syntax to prosody (e.g. PWd ≈ X0,pP ≈ XP, IP ≈ sentence etc.)

• define ‘normal’ headedness for each prosodic phrase: left or right

Once the standard mapping is established in this way, we can investigatehow the resulting standard prosodic structures are modified in response tospecific focus patterns. By our hypothesis each deviation from the standardmapping must be a way to meet FocusProminence better.

Phonological phrases correspond roughly to maximal projections of lexicalcategories. Since syntax is recursive, but prosodic structure (normally) isnot, a dilemma appears if one or more lexical XPs are contained in another,say objects within a VP. Descriptively, in a situation like (7), languages can

3

choose between at least three strategies:1

(7) [ XP YP Z ]]ZP

radical splitting: each XP, as well as any remaining non-phrasal elements,gets its own pP: (XP)(YP)(Z)

(moderate) wrapping: each XP gets its own pP, but non-phrasal elementsare ‘wrapped’ with the structurally closest phrase: (XP)(YP Z)

radical wrapping: the biggest XP, with everything it contains, gets wrappedinto one big pP: (XP YP Z)

Next, the head of pP needs to be determined, in case it has more thanone daughter. The two obvious choices are: the rightmost/leftmost PWdin a pP becomes its head. I will write this as pP-Head-R and pP-Head-L,respectively, meaning ‘the head of pP in this language wants to align withthe left/right edge of pP.’

Finally, the pP’s join to form an IP, for which, again, the head-questionarises, with choices being right- and eftmost (IP-Head-R/L).

Suppose now an element A is not normally the head of the next prosodicconstituent P containing it, i.e. the unmarked structure is as in (8):

(8)

(( *

A)(

**

B

)P)

If A is focussed, then due to FocusProminence, the prosodic structure needsto be changed. Generally, any one of three remedies can be used:

‘Swap’ the head of P to be A:

((

**

A)(*

B

)P)

This violates the headedness ofP, but leaves the phrasing intact and makes A the head of P.

Insert a P-boundary at the right edge of A:

((

**

A

))((

**

B

)P)

This makes Athe head of its own P, in which it is moreover rightmost; note that in a way,this only postpones the choice between A and B to the next higher level P+1,so this strategy will make most sense if the head at level P+1 is either to theleft, or at least more flexible than at the P-level.

1I borrow the term wrapping from Truckenbrodt (1995), who gives an account of thesethree strategies in terms of re-rankings of a small number of constraints.

4

Delete a P-1-boundary at the right edge of A:

((

**

A B

)P)P-1

This strategywill only make sense if A manages to become the head of the P-1 phrasecontaining it and B. The ‘super-sized’ P-1 phrase will trivially be the head ofP. Note that even though the prominence mark in this option is as far fromthe right edge of P as in the original structure, its technical head — the P-1level phrase — is not.

The most obvious instance of ‘swapping’ is of course the shifting of nuclearaccents, though it often coincides with instances of the other two.

Deletion of structure as a strategy to mark focus has been observed inmany languages: In English, Greek, Bengali, German and French, amongothers, focus causes the deletion of all accents to its right within the intona-tional phrase. In Hungarian focus triggers deletion of all accents to its leftwithin the intonational phrase. In Japanese and Korean it forces deletion ofall intermediate phrase/accentual phrase boundaries to its right within theintonational phrase, and in Chinese deletion of all minor phrase boundariesto the right within the major phrase.

Addition of structure is equally ubiquitous, found among others in Chichewa(addition of a phonological phrase break to the right of focus), English, Ger-man, Greek, French (addition of a phonological phrase break to the left) andJapanese (addition of an intermediate phrase boundary to the left).

2 Boundary Languages

I will call a language a boundary language if it accords to (9):

(9) Focus is marked by insertion of a prosodic boundary to the left orright of the focus.

2.1 Chichewa

The influence of focus on phrasing in Chichewa, a Bantu language, has beendescribed in Kanerva (1990). The basic word order in Chichewa is SVO, andits default phrasing at the pP-level is (10) (As Kanerva shows, pP-boundariesare detectable because they block various segmental processes) :

(10) (S)(V O1 O2 Obl)

5

Focus is marked by a pP-boundary to its right. If the default phrasingdoesn’t provide such a boundary, one is inserted (Kanerva does not discussany additional effects of focus, say, on pitch or intensity):

(11) a. (VP)What did he do?(Anamenya nyumba ndımwaala).‘He hit the house with a rock.’

b. (V OBJ OBL)What did he hit the house with?(Anamenya nyumba ndımwaala).

c. (V OBJ)(OBL)What did he hit with a rock?(Anamenya nyumba)(ndımwaala).

d. (V)(OBJ)(OBL)What did he do to the house with the rock?(Anamenya)(nyumba)(ndımwaala).

(12) a. (VP)What did they do?(Anagona mnyumba ya Mavuuto).‘They slept in Mavuto’s house.’

b. (V OBL)Where did they sleep?(Anagona mnyumba ya Mavuuto).

c. (V)(OBL)What did they do in Mavuto’s house?(Anagona)(mnyumba ya Mavuuto).

Following Truckenbrodt (1995), we can describe Chichewa as a radical wrap-ping language (since all objects are wrapped into one pP). The focus effectwill follow if pPs are strictly right-headed: By creating an additional pP,the focus becomes rightmost in that pP. This violates the languages prefer-ence for radical wrapping, but satisfies FocProm. In other words, pP-Head-Rdominates the constraints that regulate default phrasing.2

2Additional pP heads are inserted after every XP following the focus. Truckenbrodt(1995) provides an elegant account of this by assuming that, once it is impossible to wrapthe entire VP (due to FocProm), lower-ranked constraints favor the exact mapping of XPsto pPs.

6

Kanerva does not discuss intonational phrases. For completeness, we willassume that the pP containing the focus also becomes the head of the IP,meeting FocProm at the higher level:

(13)

(

(

( Anamenya)hit

(

**

nyumbaF

)

)house

(

( ndı*

mwaala

)IP)pP

)PWd

with rock

This would indicate that the head of IP is neither strictly leftmost nor strictlyrightmost, but rather flexible in its alignment. I should emphasize, though,that any assumption about IP is made here on purely theoretical grounds.

2.2 Bengali

Bengali, as discussed in Hayes and Lahiri (1991), is an SOV language withunmarked phrasing (S)(O)(V). Similar to Chichewa, pP-boundaries are de-tectable through various prosodic processes; in addition, each pP has one L*pitch accent (on its head), and one final boundary tone (notated here as H-).The head of IP can be H* or L*, depending on other factors; no PAs canfollow the IP-head (L% is the IP-boundary tone):

(14) a. amiI

kagoolanewspaperman

-ke-obj

dekhlamsaw

b.

((

L*|

*

ami

H-|

) (

k

L*|

*

agoola -ke

H-|

) (

H*|

**

dekhlam

L%|

))IPpP

(neutral)

In present terms, then, Bengali is a strictly splitting language, the oppositeof Chichewa. Assuming that the accent placement within pPs reflects theposition of the pP-head, we furthermore see that pPs are strictly left-headed.The placement of the IP-accent shows that the IP, on the other hand, is right-headed.

It is then predicted that if Bengali uses pP-boundary insertion to realizefocus, it will do so to the left of the focus, in order to make the focus leftmostin, and thus the head of, its pP. This is indeed what we find:

7

(15)

((

L*|

*

ami

H-|

) (

k

L*|

**

agoola -keF

H-|

) ( *

dekhlam

L%|

))IPpP

(OBJ focus)

What about the IP level? We predict that either the head of IP can excep-tionally shift to the left, or post-focal pP boundaries must be deleted so asto make the focal pP rightmost in IP.

What Hayes and Lahiri find is that while all pitch accents after the focusare deleted, the pP boundaries after the focus are present as before (i.e.segmental processes are blocked where they normally are, even post-focally,and H- boundary tones still occur). This means that the head of IP shifts tothe left, but no pP-deletion occurs. In addition, it must be assumed that nopitch accents can be assigned to pP-heads following the IP-head.3

2.3 Japanese

Japanese, like Bengali, is an SOV language, but unlike Bengali it shows somewrapping, its unmarked phrasing being (S)(O V) (the phrases indicated hereare usually referred to as ‘intermediate phrases’ in the literature, so I willcall them ip’s rather than pPs).

To detect ip-boundaries, we have to look at the next smaller prosodicphrase level, called the accent domain. Within an AD, a lexical H* tonetriggers downstep on all following H tones. The boundaries of ips are de-tectable because they reset this downstep, i.e. the first H within a new ipis significantly higher than a downstepped one preceding it; in addition, ipshave a final L% boundary tone and trigger lengthening of their final element.

Focus has a variety of effects on prosody in Japanese: First the F-markedconstituent is marked by an increased tonal pitch, even if it is not lexicallyaccented. Second, and more importantly for our purposes, focus triggers anintermediate phrase boundary to its left, like in Chichewa, blocking downstepwithin the focus (Beckman and Pierrehumbert, 1986, sec.4)):

3Perhaps the ban on post-IP-head accents is itself a consequence of IP-Head-R, thelogic being that the less prosodic material there is between the IP-head and the right edgeof IP, the lesser the violation of IP-Head-R. This would mean that the constraint thatfavors pP formation is stronger than IP-Head-R, while the constraint that wants pitchaccents on pP-heads is weaker.

8

(16) (

(um

H*L|

a’i)(mam

!H*L|

e’)ip

)ad

(

(um

H*L|

a’i)

)(

(mam

H*L|

e’F

)ip

)ad

(

(um

H*L|

a’iF)(mam

!H*L|

e’)ip

)ad

Third, all ip-boundaries to the right of the focus are erased (i.e. downstep isnot ever reset after a focus; in the following, underlining marks the focusseditem, and parentheses indicate intermediate phrases (Truckenbrodt, 1995,and references therein):

(17) NaokoNaoko

watop

nichiyoobiSunday

NagoyaNagoya

deat

MariMari

nıwith

attamet

‘Naoko met with Mari in Nagoya on Sunday.’

(18) normal ip-structure: (Naoko wa)(nichiyoobi)(Nagoya de)(Mari nı atta)

a. (Naoko wa)(nichiyoobi)(Nagoya de)(Mari nı)(atta)b. (Naoko wa)(nichiyoobi)(Nagoya)(de)(Mari nı atta)c. (Naoko wa)(nichiyoobi)(Nagoya de Mari nı atta)d. (Naoko wa)(nichiyoobi Nagoya de Mari nı atta)e. (Naoko wa nichiyoobi Nagoya de Mari nı atta)

Truckenbrodt (1995) suggests a straightforward analysis for this pattern: Theip-boundary insertion tells us that ips in Japanese are strictly left-headed(same as in Chichewa):

(19) a.( *

A BF

)ip

(bad: focus is not head of ip)

b.(

A*

BF

)ip

(bad: ip has its head on the right)

c.( *

A)( *

B)ip

(ip a little small, but FocProm and ip-Hd ok)

The increased pitch indicates that the accent domain containing the focus isthe head of the intonational phrase (IP). Finally, and this sets Japanese apartfrom both Chichewa and Bengali, the IP is strictly right headed. Therefore,the ip containing the focus can only become the head of IP by being rightmostin IP, which in turn requires deletion of all following ip-boundaries.

(20) a.

(( *

A)( *

BF C)(

**

D

))IPip

(bad: focus ip not head of IP)

b.

(( *

A)(

**

BF C)( *

D

))IPip

(bad: IP head is not right)

9

c.

(( *

A)(

**

BF C D

))IPip

(ip a little big, but FocProm and IP-Hd ok)

Similar patterns have been described for Korean (Jun, 1996) and Greek (Con-doravdi, 1990; Baltazani and Jun, 1999), among others.

2.4 English

Focus in English is first and foremost realized by pitch accents, since it seemsvery hard to find consistent segmental or tonal effects of boundaries. How-ever, the analysis of English doesn’t provide anything new. English has thebasic (S)(V O) structure, i.e. it is a moderate wrapping language (though(S)(V)(O) is possible, too). Heads of oPs are realized by pitch accents, theIP-head being the nuclear pitch accent; unlike Bengali, English has a widerange of pitch accents and pitch accent combinations, so that it is impossi-ble to identify the IP-head by its tonal shape. The primary indicator if theIP-head is that like in Bengali, no pitch accents can follow the one markingthe IP-head, which yields the familiar effect that a non-sentence-final focusis marked by an early nuclear pitch accent, i.e. the absence of pitch accentsotherwise present.

We may ask whether this is the result of shifting the IP-head to a non-finalpP, as in Bengali, or of deleting post-focal pPs, similar to Japanese.

I don’t know of any segmental processes that indicate pP-boundaries inEnglish. Jun and Fougeron (2000) mention in passing that postfocal materialin English (unlike in French) is characteristically shortened, which they sug-gest may indicate the absence of pP-boundaries (which would induce pP-finallengthening). Hayes and Lahiri (1991) on the other hand point out that thealignment of post-focal phrase tones may indicate the right boundary of thefocus pP, which would suggest the presence of (accent-less) postfocal pPs, asin Bengali.

What about pP-insertion? Let us start by noting that in certain wrappingstructures, narrow focus yields a shift in accent:

(21) a. (out of the blue:) Your COAT’s on fire.

((

[ your c

**

oat’s on fire

))

]

IPpP

F

b. (Why are you staring at my coat? )

Your coat’s on FIRE.

((

your c*

oat’s)(

on f

**

ireF

))IPpP

10

As indicated (21a) is an instance of wrapping, whereas (21b) has two separatepPs (as is evident from the prenuclear accent on coat). I take this to meanthat the focus on the predicate on fire triggers the insertion of a pP-boundaryto its left, i.e. that the constraint pP-Head-L is stronger than the constraintsgoverning default pP-formation.

This concludes my discussion of Boundary Languages. We have seen thatvarious boundary languages can be analyzed using a small number of para-metric choices. Boundary languages comprise languages in which pitch ac-cent placement seems to be the main indicator of focus (English), as well aslanguages in which other prosodic or segmental cues are the main correlateof focus (Chichewa). Given the perspective of the PTF, these languages canbe seen as variations of the same focus realization strategy.

3 Edge Languages

I call languages regarding which (22) is true Edge Languages :

(22) Focus is marked by non-standard constituent order, with the focus inleft- or right-peripheral position.

On the face of it, edge languages display a fundamentally different, syntac-tic, strategy of focus marking, perhaps involving some specialized phrasestructural position such as a Focus Phrase.

At least for some languages, however, it has been shown that the focusposition is truly defined in terms of being peripheral to a particular (prosodic)domain, but not in terms of being in a particular structural position. Wewill start by examining those, and then return to the question whether thereare true ‘focus position languages’.

The basic analysis for edge languages uses the exact same ingredients asthe analysis of Boundary languages in the previous section: Like boundarylanguages, edge languages minimize the material between the focus and therelevant prosodic phrase edge, but unlike boundary languages, they do sovia syntax. More precisely, these languages cannot, or only to a very lim-ited extent, amend the prosodic structure (Vallduvı (1990)’s strict (versustransparent) languages).

11

3.1 Spanish

Zubizarreta (1998) provides the seminal discussion and analysis of an edgelanguage, Spanish. The following discussion adopts her basic insight, but iscloser in detail to the analysis of Buring and Gutierrez-Bravo (2001).

The basic description of the facts is rather straightforward: Taking ac-cents as indicative of pP-heads, Spanish shows a basic (S)(V O) or (S)(V)(O)phrasing (it is like English in that respect). Unlike in English, however, thisbasic prosodic pattern cannot change in response to focussing. Rather, con-stituent order is used to make sure that the focussed constituent ends upclause final. For example, (non-corrective) subject focus is only possiblewith clause final subjects, whereas broad focus sentences show SVO order:

(23) Q: Que paso?‘What happened?’

//

Que hizo Juan?‘What did Juan do?’

A: JuanJuan

comprobought

ayeryesterday

elthe

peRIOdico.newspaper

‘Juan bought the newspaper yesterday.’

(24) Q: Quienwho

comprobought

elthe

periodiconewspaper

ayer?yesterday

A: Ayeryesterday

comprobought

elthe

periodiconewspaper

JUAN.Juan

A’:#JUANJuan

comprobought

ayeryesterday

elthe

periodico.newspaper

‘Juan bought the newspaper yesterday.’

The well-formed answers in (23) and (24) all have the same prosodic struc-ture, by which I mean the following: all sentences above map the imme-diate constituents S, O, Adv, and V onto one pP each, with the possi-ble exception of wrapping V with O. A transitive subject-focus sentencelike (24) thus has the same prosodic pattern as an all new sentence like (23)—(XP)(V)(YP)(ZP) — which we can explain if we assume that Spanish is anoptional (moderate) wrapping language that matches pPs with XPs.

The focus effect will follow if we assume that both pP-formation andIP-Head-R are very strict. That is, a focussed subject can neither becomeprominent by shifting the IP-head to a non-final pP, nor by deleting post-focalpPs. Short of violating FocProm itself, the language resorts to constituentorder variation.

12

(25)

(

(

(Ju*

an)

)(

(compr*

o)

)(

(ay*

er)

)(

(el peRI

**

Odico

)

)

)

(26) a. *

(

(

(Ju

**

anF

)

)(

(compr*

o)

)(

(ay*

er)

)(

(el pere*

odico

)

)

) IP-head not right

b. *

(

(

(Ju

**

anF compro ayer el periodico

)

)

) pPs not properly build

c.

(

(

(Ay*

er)

)(

(compr*

o)

)(

(el peri*

odico)

)(

(Ju

**

anF

)

)

) non-standard order,but happy prosody

Note that this analysis is different from saying that Spanish moves the focusinto a right-peripheral position: There is no evidence that, say, a focussedobject as in (27A) occupies a different position than an object in a neutral/all-new sentence like in (23), or one within a VP focus, or one in a subject-focusVOS sentence (analogously for focussed adverbials, VPs, and sentences):

(27) Q: Quewhat

comprobought

Juan?J.

‘What did Juan buy?’A: Juan

J.comprobought

elthe

peRIOdico.newspaper

‘Juan bought the newspaper.’

On the other hand, Spanish does not allow for VOS order in regular all-new sentences, even though that results in the standard prosodic structure(V)(O)(S), and has the nuclear accent within the focus:

(28) Q: Que paso?A:#Ayer compro el periodico Juan. (any prosody)

(29)

(

(

(Ay*

er)

)(

(compr*

o)

)(

(el peri*

odico)

)(

(Ju

**

an

)

)

)

One could take this to mean that in an all new sentence the main accent hasto be one the O (by some yet unarticulated principle like a syntactic NuclearStress Rule), and that that in turn is only possibly in O-final order. I thinkit is advantageous, however, to simply derive this from a syntactic preferencefor SVO order, which will only be violated under pressure from FocProm.

13

But how could this be implemented? Given that FocusProminence makereference to prosodic structure (by talking about prominence), does this meanthat marked constituent order is established only after prosodic structure isbuilt (and prosodic structure is subsequently ‘re-built’)? This is more or lessthe position taken in Zubizarreta (1998).4 Alternatively, one can reverse thecausal chain and claim that each syntactic structure, canonical or inverted,is associated with the set of its possible focus markings (roughly the positionof Reinhart (1995)); the constituent order variation itself is then essentiallyoptional. Finally, in a system that accesses syntactic and prosodic structurein parallel, questions of this sort don’t even arise.

3.2 Italian

Unsurprisingly, the basic pattern of data in Italian is the same as in Spanish,i.e. focussed subjects appear in non-canonical sentence final position:

(30) Q: What happened?

A: [

(

(

( G*

ianni)

)(

(G.

hahas

scritto )(written

unaa

l

**

ettera

)IP)pP

)PWd ]Fletter

(31) Q: Who laughed?

A:

(

(

( Hahas

riso )(laughed

G

**

ianniF

)IP)pP

)PWd

G.

Detailed investigation in Samek-Lodovici (2002) and Szendroi (2001, no year)(as well as, from a different theoretical vantage point, Frascarelli (2000)) showsome additional details that are worth pointing out, though.

First, in (32), the focussed subject appears between the direct and theindirect object:

(32) Q: Chiwho

hahas

mandatosent

ilthe

vinowine

ato

Marco?M.

4The analog to FocProm doesn’t directly reference prosodic structure, but the notionof ‘Nuclear Stress’, which is crucially established after the syntactic structure has beencompletely assembled. In case of a mismatch between focus and Nuclear Stress, a latesyntactic adjustment rule changes the constituent order.

14

A:

(

(

( Glito him

hahas

mand*

ato)

)(

(sent

ilthe

v*

ino)

)(

(wine

G

**

ianniF

)

)

),

(

(

(G.,

ato

M

**

arco

)IP)pP

)PWd

M.‘Gianni sent the wine to Marco.’

This seems unmotivated, given that it is neither peripheral nor in its canon-ical position. However, as indicated, in these structures the sentence final,post-focal constituent is prosodically separated from, and perceptively lessprominent than, the rest of the clause. This is interpreted to mean that theindirect object in (32) has been syntactically right-dislocated, and forms itsown IP. It is the latter fact that is important here. Within its own IP, thesubject is right peripheral, so IP-Head-R is met. What of the next higherlevel, call it the utterance phrase? Here we have to assume that the head ofthe UP is on the left IP (the main clause), i.e. that the UP is not as strictlyright-headed as the IP.5

Second, Samek-Lodovici and Frascarelli point out an interesting phe-nomenon that emphasizes the relation between edge languages and boundarylanguages. In certain cases it is syntactically impossible to make the focustruly peripheral within the main clause:

(33) Q: Will you eat four sandwiches?/How many sandwiches will you eat?

a. ( Mangeroeat-FUT-1Sg

tr*

eF

threepanini)sandwiches

b. *(Mangero panini)(tr*

eF)

Nevertheless, the subject here has to show up in postverbal position. That is,there is small violation of either the headedness or the phrasing constraint,allowing the accent to shift slightly to the left, as it would in English. At thesame time, the amount of this violation is minimized by bringing the nextbigger movable phrase containing the focus as close to the right edge of theclause as possible.

5It is interesting to note that there is evidence that the post-focal material here isalso syntactically moved. It thus seems as if syntactic extraposition is a prerequisite for‘excluding’ an argument from the main clause IP.

15

3.3 Hungarian

Let us now turn to Hungarian, which is perhaps the most well-known lan-guage with a fixed focus position. The standard analysis for Hungariandescribes it as having the constituent order in (34), where ‘(Topic*)’ means‘one or more topics’:

(34) (Topic*) Focus V S O

Hungarian provides clear evidence for the structural reality of the focus po-sition (in contradistinction to Italian, as discussed above), since the focusposition is not obligatorily filled, and since placement of a constituent inthat position is regularly accompanied by an inversion between the verb andcertain preverbal particles.

(35) a. MariMary-nom

felVM

hıvtarang

Petert.Peter-acc.

b. MARIFMary-nom

hıvtarang

felVM

Petert.Peter-acc

c. *MARIMary-nom

felVM

hıvtarang

Petert.Peter-acc.

‘Mary rang up Peter.’ Szendroi (2000)

Recently, the accuracy of (34) has nonetheless been challenged in various

ways. E. Kiss (1998) argues that foci can appear in situ (i.e. postverbally) aswell as in in the preverbal position, and that rather, the structures involvinga preverbal focus are akin to English clefts. If this is correct, Hungarian isnot a strict positional focus language at all.

Szendroi (2001) maintains that foci cannot generally occur in situ, butargues that the movement to the pre-verbal position is prosodically driven.On her analysis, Hungarian is basically the mirror image of Italian: The IP isleft-headed (an idea already proposed in Jacobs (1991/2b)), drawing foci tothe left periphery. Prefocal topics are outside of the main IP (in Szendroi’sanalysis, IP is recursive, as shown in (36)), and thus do not yield violationsof IP-Head-L:

(IP (Top)pP . . . (IP (*

. . . )pP(. . . )pP. . . )IP)IP

Syntactically, foci are moved into a specifier position (simply called SpecFfor ‘functional’), while topics are adjoined; this maps onto the prosody as

16

in (36):

(36) a. Athe

nowoman

aher

KALAPJATcap-acc

vettetook

leoff

(nem a saljat).

‘It was her hat that the woman took off (not her scarf).’b. FP

DP

A no

FP

DP

a KALAPJAT

F

F0

vette1

VP

V

le t1

tS tO

c.

(

(

(A n*

o)

)

(

(

(a K

**

alapjat vette)

)(

(l*

e

))IP)pP

)PWd

Unlike in Italian, the left-peripheral position in IP in Hungarian is standardlyfilled by the verb, rather than by an argument. Therefore, no argument isever in a ‘focusable’ position in the unmarked VSO order, making focusmovement ubiquitous. Not only do these movements all target the sameposition, but they also all trigger particle/verb inversion, which is unlikein Italian. Nevertheless, according to Szendroi, there is nothing inherently‘focussy’ about the perverbal position, other than that it will eventually beleft-peripheral within the main IP.

Szendroi (2001) presents additional evidence for this view, which, like inItalian, involves cases in which the focus is an element that is ‘naturally’ left-peripheral. Since Hungarian has unmarked VSO order, this involves focus onV or a verbal projection. All these cases have an empty ‘focus position’ andfurthermore lack particle/verb inversion. In other words, just like in Italianobject focus sentences, there is no evidence of any ‘focus movement’:

(37) a. Athe

nowoman

aher

kalapjathat-acc

[ l*

eoff

vettetook

azthe

eloszobaban]F.hall-in

17

b. Aher

kalapjathat-acc

athe

nowoman

[ l*

eoff

vettetook

azthe

eloszobaban]F.hall-in

‘The woman took her hat off in the hall.’ (Szendroi, 2000, p.12)

c.

(

(

(a k*

alapjat︸ ︷︷ ︸

topic

)

)

(

(

( a n*

o︸ ︷︷ ︸

topic

)

)

(

(

(l

**

e vette)

)(

(az*

eloszobaban︸ ︷︷ ︸

VPF

)IP)pP

)PWd

3.4 Relaxed Edge Languages

Let me briefly mention that in many languages, focus occurs towards an edge,but not exactly at the edge. Most common examples of this are strict V-finallanguages in which the focus appears pre-verbally:

(38) Gujarati (Indo-Aryan)

a. Athis

choplibook

konnewho

lidi?bought ‘Who bought this book?’

b. (Athis

chopli)book

meI

lidi.bought

c. #Me a chopli lidi.

(39) Telugu (Dravidian):

a. SitaSita

anteACC

evarikiwho

ishtam?like ‘Who likes Sita?’

b. SitaSita

anteACC

RamkiRam

ishtam.like ‘Ram likes Sita.’

c. #Ramki Sita ante ishtam.

Similar patterns are documented for Turkish, Sherpa (Tibet), Mongolian,Hindi/Urdu a.o. (Hyun-Oak, 1988).

Within the present analysis, these languages are basically like Italian andSpanish, except that they are head-final, and either completely disallow V-X structures, or allow them only as right-dislocation-like structures akin tothe Italian cases discussed above. Lacking the means to get the verb out ofthe way, as it were, and thereby making a focussed arguments truly rightperipheral, these languages minimize the IP-Head-L violation by bringingthe focus as close to the left IP-edge as possible, and then wrapping it withthe IP-final verb:

18

(40)

((

S*

ita ante)(

R

**

amki ishtam

))

Additional evidence for an analysis along these lines, as opposed to one thatassumes a designated syntactic position for foci, may come from the factthat in many of these languages, not only verbs can intervene between afocus and the left IP-edge. Often a whole range of arguments that are gen-erally considered very ‘close’ the the verb, such as locatives, indefinites etc.,may separate the focus from the end of the clause. It seems promising toassume that the preverbal focus position is actually achieved by scramblingintervening phrases to the left, leaving only immobile elements to intervenebetween the focus and the IP-edge. Detailed studies of this language typewithin the present perspective have yet to be conducted.

4 Mixed Languages

In the last section I have argued that languages that appear to mark focussyntactically can be analyzed using the same framework used for languagesthat mark focus prosodically. We have also seen that many languages ofthe latter kind show prosodic effects of focus as well, especially where it issyntactically impossible to bring a focus all the way to the pertinent edge ofthe IP.

From the perspective of the PTF it is not only unsurprising, but expectedthat languages should mix the two strategies, or more precisely, mix them ina broader range of cases than the ones discussed so far. And indeed, exam-ples of that language type abound, including most of the Slavic languages,German, and to a lesser extent other Germanic languages, Japanese, Korean,Portuguese and Finnish.

In these languages, either prosodic or syntactic structure may be usedto mark focus. In either case, the pay-off will be that the other ‘half’ ofstructure is realized canonically:

(41) Generalization 1: marked constituent order may only be used forfocussing X if the resulting prosodic structure is less marked thanthat necessary to focus X in the unmarked constituent order.

Since the languages mentioned all are prominence final (IP-Head-R), it fur-thermore follows that:

19

(42) Generalization 2: marked CO signals narrow focus on ‘rightmost’ el-ement

I illustrate this with German. German is basic S IO DO V (with verb sec-ond in root clauses yielding X Vfin S IO DO Vinf) with regular (S)(IO)(DOV) phrasing, i.e. modest wrapping. Apart from its head-final VP, Germanbehaves like English prosodically: The head of IP is right peripheral, puttingthe nuclear pitch accent on the DO in neutral sentences. Shifting the headto the left yields post-nuclear deaccenting (and possibly de-structuring), andunambiguously signals narrow focus on the constituent that corresponds tothe IP-head.

Crucially, any focus pattern that is consistent with the unmarked orderand unmarked prosody (i.e. DOF, [DO V]F, [IO DO V]F, [S IO DO V]F) mustbe realized with canonical word order. To focus, say, the IO, on the otherhand, either the phrasing or the constituent order has to be amended:

(43) a.

(

(

( Erhe

hat)(has

demto-the

Pil

**

otenF)(pilot

diethe

Passagiere)(passengers

vorgestelltintroduced

)IP)pP

)PWd.

b.

(

(

(Er hat)( die Passag*

iere)

)(

(dem Pil

**

otenF)(vorgestellt

)IP)pP

)PWd

‘He introduced the passengers to the pilot.’ (IOF-DO/ DO-IOF)

Thus German chooses the English strategy in (43a), but behaves like a Re-laxed Edge Language in (43b).

It bears reiterating that sentences with marked constituent order havea strong tendency for sentence final focus; that is to say, getting the focusinto the unmarked NA position seems to be the primary motivation for COvariation in German. This appears to be different in Serbo-Croatian (Godje-vac, 2000), where CO order seems to vary independently of focus placement.Serbo-Croatian does share two properties with German, though: pre-nuclearpitch accent and marked CO each unambiguously signal narrow focus.

5 Strict Position Languages

To repeat, a strict position language would be one that obligatorily puts fo-cussed constituents into a syntactically distinct position. The typological and

20

theoretical literature abounds with claims that languages have ‘focus posi-tions’ (Armenian (Comrie, 1984), Basque (Saltarelli, 1988), Finnish (Vilkuna,1989), Georgian (Harris, 1982), Hausa (Tuller, 1986), Hungarian (Brody,1990; E. Kiss, 1987), Nupe (Baker and Kandibowicz, 2003; Kandibowicz,2006), Turkish (Erguvanlı, 1984), a.o.), but as we have seen in our discussionof Hungarian, this claim can be open to reevaluation. First and foremost,a language will only qualify as a Strict Position Language if it doesn’t havean alternative in situ strategy; otherwise, the so-called focus constructionis simply an information structurally ‘loaded’ construction, like e.g. Englishclefts. That is to say, if a language has constructions in which foci typicallyoccur in a specific position, that doesn’t make it a Strict Position Language;it would only if all foci are realized in that construction. Upon closer inspec-tion, Hausa, Nupe, and, ostensibly, Hungarian belong in the former category.(It is of course an interesting question what makes constructions such as cleft-ing, dislocation etc. information structurally ‘loaded’ in that way, but onethat is orthogonal to the purpose of the present paper.)

Second, Strict Position effects are generally amenable to a reinterpretationas edge effects. As discussed above, there are crucial cases to tease the twoapart: Do the focussed constituents show any independent evidence for beingin a structurally distinguished position, especially if their unmarked positionlinearly coincides with the focus position (as we saw, this doesn’t seem to bethe case for Italian or Hungarian)? And is the edge effect strict, or is there astructurally definable class of elements that intervene between the focus andthe pertinent edge (most clearly illustrated in the Relaxed Edge Languages)?

Taking into consideration these tests and criteria, my cursory overviewdidn’t reveal any languages that clearly qualify as Strict Position Languages,so a more detailed discussion has to await a later occasion.

To sum up this article up until here, we have seen that the PTF not onlyprovides a unified account of edge, position, and accent based strategies forfocus, but also can account for a wide variety of mixed cases. In the nexttwo sections, I will briefly look at less straightforward cases and offer somespeculations as to how, if at all, these languages could be analyzed alongsimilar lines.

21

6 Particle Languages

I am interested here in languages that characteristically mark the focussedconstituent itself by a special morpheme (there are also languages in whichspecial verbal or sentential particles mark a sentence containing a focus,which I won’t discuss). Examples are ubiquitous, though detailed discus-sions are rare. A typical example is Chickasaw, a (Western) Muskogeanlanguage, that marks subject and object focus by suffixes -akot/-ako and-ho:t/-ho (Munro and Willmond, 1994; Gordon, in press); there is no ad-ditional prosodic focus marking, and hence no marking at all for verb orsentence focus:

(44) a. hat:ak-atman-sub

koni(a)skunk

pisa.sees

‘The man sees the skunk.’b. hat:ak-akot

Man-foc.subj.koni(a)skunk

pisa.sees

‘THE MAN sees the skunk.’c. hat:ak-at

Man-subjkoni-ako:skunk-foc.obj.

pisa.sees

The man sees THE SKUNK.

It seems straightforward to analyze the focus morpheme as a direct spell-outof the syntactic feature F, in which case the prominence based account hasnothing to offer in the analysis of these languages. Alternative one could hy-pothesize that the focus morpheme marks prominence of prosodic units; thatwould make it the counterpart of positional head marking in the languagesdescribed so far.

To illustrate what kind of data may motivate such an analysis, I willbriefly discuss Guruntum, a Chadic SVO language spoken in Nigeria (Hart-mann and Zimmermannn, 2005; Zimmermann, 2005). Guruntum has a focusmarker a, which generally occurs before the focus:

(45) neutral: Tı3sg

baprog

wumchew

kwalıngala.colanut ‘He is chewing colanut.’

(46) subject focus

a. Afoc

kwawho

baprog

wumchew

kwalıngala-ı?colanut-the

22

‘Who is chewing the colanut?’b. A

focfurmayofulani

baprog

wumchew

kwalıngala.colanut

‘THE FULANI is chewing colanut.’

(47) object focus

a. Afoc

kaeawhat

mairel

tı3sg

baprog

wumı?chew ‘What is he chewing?’

b. Tı3sg

baprog

wum-achew-foc

kwalıngala.colanut ‘He is chewing COLANUT.

There are two additional complications: first, with V and VP-focus, a occursafter the V:

(48) VP-focus

a. Afoc

kaeawhat

mairel

tı3sg

baprog

pı?do ‘What is he doing?’

b. Tı3sg

baprog

romb-agather-foc

gweı.seeds ‘He is gathering the seeds.’

(49) V-focus

a. Afoc

kaeawhat

mairel

tı3sg

baprog

pıdo

naawith

gweı?seeds

‘What is he doing with the seeds?’b. Tı

3sgbaprog

romb-agather-foc

gweı.seeds ‘He is gathering the seeds.’

Second, in sentences without overt objects, VP focus doesn’t allow a at all:

(50) V-focus without overt object

a. Afoc

kaeawhat

mairel

tı3sg

baprog

pıdo

naato

duso-ı?car-the

‘What is he doing to the car?’b. Tı

3sgbaprog

krı.repair ‘He is repairing (it).’

In order to explain why V a O is ambiguous between V, VP, and O focus,we assume that V moves to a position outside of VP; a, even if marking VP,

23

thus linearly follows the verb.6 Furthermore, assume that a actually marksthe left edge of the prosodic phrase containing the (base position of the)focus. This would immediately derive the fact that a marking is impossiblein intransitive clauses: VP is empty, hence there is no phonological phrasecontaining the focus.

This line of analysis, highly speculative though it is, extents the prosodicaccount of focus marking to morphological marking languages in an inter-esting way, in particular by proposing that the distribution of morphologicalmarkers may be determined by prosodic structure and in particular, the no-tion of ‘prosodic head’.

Many questions remain open, though, for example: why is there no a-marking on all-new sentences? We have been assuming that all-new sentencesare all-focus sentences, but maybe this assumption should be called intoquestion. Another possibility is that there are constraints regarding theentire focus realization paradigm, which block sentential a-marking since theresult would look the same as narrow subject focus (Malte Zimmermann,p.c.). Finally this may suggest that, at least in Guruntum, focus markingonly takes place in order to mark a contrast in focus status; if everything isequally focussed (as in an all-new sentence), there is no need to mark anyasymmetries in F-marking. I leave these questions for further research.

7 Non-Marking Languages

Let me close this paper with another puzzling case, from another Chadic lan-guage, Hausa. Hausa has long been described as a language that marks focusby movement into a sentence initial position, in certain tenses accompaniedby a specific form of the auxiliary, called the relative form, and raising oflexical high tones within the focus. It turns out, though, that alongside thisex situ strategy, Hausa can alternatively leave foci in situ (Green and Jaggar,to appear; Hartmann and Zimmermannn, to appear; Jaggar, 2001). The two

6This idea is less absurd than it may seem. Note that association with focus alsodisregards head-movement, as the following German example shows:

(i) ( Wirwe

losensolve

dasthe

Problemproblem

nicht.)not

Wirwe

verLAGernFrelocate

esit

nur.only

‘We don’t solve the problem. We only relocated it.’

24

strategies do not appear to be correlated with any semantic or pragmaticdistinctions such as exhaustivity, contrastivity etc.

(51) Q: Meewhat

su-ka3pl-rel.perf

kaamaa?catch

‘What did they catch?’A: Sun

3pl.perfkaamacatch

dawaakiihorses

(ne).PRT

‘They caught HORSES.’ OBJ-NP

(52) Q: Meewhat

TankoT.

ya3sg.rel.perf

yido

wato

haraajı-n?taxes-DET

‘What did Tanko do with the taxes?’A: Tanko

T.yaa3sg.perf

biyaapay

haraajı-ntaxes-DET

(ne).PRT

‘Tanko paidF the taxes.’ V

(53) Q: Meeneeneewhat

ya3sg.rel.perf

faaru?happen

‘What happened?’ IPA: Tanko

T.yaa3sg.perf

biyaapay

haraajıntaxes

(ne).PRT

‘Tanko [paid the taxes]VP.’

This, in and of itself, is not novel. Two additional facts, however, elevateHause to the level of a conundrum. First, in situ focus appears to lack anyacoustically measurable or perceivable marking; a sentence with basic SVOOorder is ambiguous between focus on either object, the verb, the whole sen-tence, or the verb phrase. So one might be inclined to think that focus is sim-ply not relevant in Hausa at all. However, and this is the second crucial fact,focussed subjects must occur in the focus position, and obligatorily triggerthe relative form of the auxiliary (where applicable; all data from Hartmannand Zimmermannn (to appear) & p.c.):

(54) Q: Waawho

ya-kee3sg-rel.cont

kira-nta?call-her

‘Who is calling her?’A1: Daudaa

D.(nee)PRT

ya-kee3sg-rel.cont

kira-nta.call-her

‘Dauda is calling her.’

25

A2:*DaudaaD.

ya-naa3sg-cont

kira-nta.call-her

The biggest problem with explaining this pattern within the prosodic accountis that the subject in sentences without focus-movement like A2 is in thesame prosodic position as focus in sentences with focus-movement like A1:left-peripheral. So even disregarding the differences between subjects andnon-subjects, the prosodic theory cannot offer any reason why the subjectshould undergo essentially string-vacuous movement in order to be markedas focus (recall that the absence of any evidence for string vacuous movementof peripheral constituents in Italian, Spanish and Hungarian was considereda strong argument in favor of the prosodic account).

It seems that in order to incorporate a language like Hausa into frameworkof PTF, we have to allow for the notion of prominence to be alternativelydefined in syntactic terms, along the lines of the hierarchies in (55):

(55) a. focus >Prom restb. rest >Prom subject

That is to say, the syntactic subject position is inherently less prominentthan the rest of the clause, and the syntactic focus position is inherently moreprominent than the rest of the clause. FocusProminence requires action ifthe focus is less prominent than a non-focus; this would be the case if eithera non-focus were moved to the focus position, or a focussed subject wereleft in situ, exactly the two options excluded in Hausa. Non-subject foci areallowed to stay in situ since, absent a filled focus position, their position isthe most prominent in the clause.

This analysis preserves the general architecture of the prominence basedtheory of focus, but crucially parameterizes the notion of prominence as eithersyntax-based (Hausa) or prosody-based (English etc.). This doesn’t meanthat the prosodic (re)analyses of apparently syntactic focus strategies such asin Italian, Spanish or Hungarian should be abandoned. I still believe that thearguments given there are convincing. But it does mean that the strongestconceivable version of the prominence based theory, which universally definesprominence in terms of prosodic structure, seems untenable. Of course it isvery possible that future investigation of Hausa and other languages like itreveal a way to reconcile it with the strongest theory. This question, too,will be left for future research.

26

8 Conclusion

This paper presented, in very broad strokes, the outlines of a cross-linguistictheory of focus realization. I tried to show how a Prominence Theory of focusrealization affords a uniform and explanatory account of seemingly unrelatedways in which various languages realize focus, but also, where it fails to doso, at least in a straightforward way.

My intention in this paper was to explain and illustrate the general logicof the PTF, indicate open theoretical and empirical questions, and thus invitefurther, and more detailed, research within the paradigm.

References

Baker, Mark and Jason Kandibowicz (2003). “On Directionality and theStructure of the Verb Phrase: Evidence from Nupe.” Syntax 6(2):115–155.

Baltazani, Mary and Sun-Ah Jun (1999). “Focus and Topic intonation inGreek.” In Proceedings of 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences(ICPhS ), 1305–1308.

Beckman, Mary and Janet Pierrehumbert (1986). “Intonational Structure inJapanese and English.” In Phonology Yearbook , no. 3, 255–309.

Brody, Michael (1990). “Some remarks on the focus field in Hungarian.” InUCL Working Papers in Linguistics 2 , 201–225.

Buring, Daniel and Rodrigo Gutierrez-Bravo (2001). “Focus-related word or-der variation without the NSR: A prosody-based crosslinguistic analysis.”In Seamas Mac Bhloscaidh, ed., Syntax at Santa Cruz 3 , 41–58.

Comrie, Bernard (1984). “Some Formal Properties of Focus in Modern East-ern Armenian.” Annual Armenian Linguistics 5:1–21.

Condoravdi, Cleo (1990). “Sandhi Rules of Greek and Prosodic Theory.” InInkelas and Zec (1990), 63–84.

E. Kiss, Katalin (1987). Configurationality in Hungarian. Dordrecht: Foris.

27

E. Kiss, Katalin (1998). “Identificational Focus and Information Focus.”Language 74:245–273.

Erguvanlı, Eser E. (1984). The Function of Word Order in Turkish Grammar .Berkeley.

Frascarelli, Mara (2000). The Syntax-Phonology Interface in Focus and TopicConstructions in Italian. No. 50 in Studies in Natural Language and Lin-guistic Theory. Dordrecht/ Boston/ London: Kluwer.

Godjevac, Svetlana (2000). Intonation, Word Order, and Focus Projectionin Serbo-Croatian. Ph.D. thesis, Ohio State University.

Gordon, Matthew (in press). “The intonational realization of contrastivefocus in Chickasaw.” In Chungmin Lee, Matthew Gordon, and DanielBuring, eds., Intonational and Meaning from a cross-linguistic perspective.Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Green, Melanie and Philip Jaggar (to appear). “Ex-situ and In-situ Focus inHausa: Syntax, Semantics, and Discourse.” In Jacqueline Lecarme, JeanLowenstamm, and Ur Shlonsky, eds., Research in Afroasiatic GrammarIII . Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Harris, Alice C. (1982). “Towards the Universals of Q-Word Formation.” InPapers from the Parasession on Nondeclaratives, 67–75. Chicago: ChicagoLinguistic Society.

Hartmann, Katharina and Malte Zimmermannn (2005). “Morphological Fo-cus Marking in Guruntum (Western Chadic).” Handout presented at Focusin African Languages, ZAS & Humboldt University Berlin, 08-10-05 .

Hartmann, Katharina and Malte Zimmermannn (to appear). “In Place —Out of Place: Focus in Hausa.” In Kerstin Schwabe and Susanne Winkler,eds., Information Structure and the Architecture of Grammar: A Typolog-ical Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Hayes, Bruce and Aditi Lahiri (1991). “Bengali Intonational Phonology.”Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 9:47–96.

Hyun-Oak, Kim. Alan (1988). “Preverbal Focusing and Type XXIII Lan-guages.” In E. Moravcsik M. Hammond and J. Wirth, eds., Studies inSyntactic Typology , 149–171. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.

28

Inkelas, Sharon and Draga Zec (1990). The Phonology-Syntax Connection.The University of Chicago Press.

Jacobs, Joachim (1991/2a). Informationsstruktur und Grammatik . Opladen:Westdeutscher Verlag. (= Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 4).

Jacobs, Joachim (1991/2b). “Neutral Stress and the Position of Heads.” InJacobs (1991/2a), 220–244.

Jaggar, Philip (2001). Hausa. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Jun, Sun-Ah (1996). The Phonetics and Phonology of Korean Prosody: in-tonational phonology and prosodic structure. New York: Garland.

Jun, Sun-Ah and Cecile Fougeron (2000). “A Phonological Model of FrenchIntonation.” In Antonis Botinis, ed., Intonation: Analysis, Modeling andTechnology , 209–242. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Kandibowicz, Jason (2006). Conditions on Multiple Copy Spell-Out and theSyntax-Phonology Interface. Ph.D. thesis, UCLA.

Kanerva, Jonni M. (1990). “Focusing on Phonological Phrases in Chichewa.”In Inkelas and Zec (1990), 145–161.

Munro, Pamela and Catherine Willmond (1994). Chickasaw: an AnalyticalDictionary . Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Reinhart, Tanya (1995). Interface Strategies. OTS Working Papers.

Saltarelli, Mario (1988). Basque. London.

Samek-Lodovici, Vieri (2002). “Prosody-Syntax Interaction in the Expressionof Focus.” Ms. London.

Szendroi, Kriszta (2000). “A Stress Driven Approach to the Syntax of Focus.”Ms. University College London .

Szendroi, Kriszta (2001). Focus and the Syntax-Phonology Interface. Ph.D.thesis, University College London.

Szendroi, Kriszta (no year). “Stress-Focus Correspondence in Italian.” Ms.University College London .

29

Truckenbrodt, Hubert (1995). Phonological Phrases: Their Relation to Syn-tax, Focus, and Prominence. Ph.D. thesis, MIT. published 1999 byMITWPL.

Tuller, Laurice (1986). Bijective Relations in Universal Grammar and theSyntax of Hausa. Ph.D. thesis, UCLA.

Vallduvı, Enric (1990). The Informational Component . Ph.D. thesis, Uni-versity of Pennsylvania. (published 1992: Garland).

Vilkuna, Maria (1989). Free Word Order in Finnish. Its Syntax and DiscourseFunctions . Ph.D. thesis, Helsinki.

Zimmermann, Malte (2005). “Focus in Wester Chadic: A Unified OT-Account.” In Proceedings of NELS 36 .

Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa (1998). Prosody, Focus and Word Order . MITPress.

30