CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 182Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationLinguistic Studies and Language AcquisitionPhonetics and Phonology Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Towards a typology of focus realization

Büring, Daniel·2009·Information Structure
DOI 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199570959.003.0008
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Chapter 8 ‘Towards a Typology of Focus Realization’ by Daniel Büring presents a first attempt to formulate a cross‐linguistic theory of focus realization, that is, of how different languages express focusing. By far not all languages mark focused constituents via pitch accent placement, the way Germanic languages do. Rather, focusing is variously reflected in prosodic phrasing, constituent ordering, via special focus morphemes, and perhaps in some cases, not at all. The chapter explores the hypothesis that there is still something systematic to be said about focus realization, that is, that there is a common analytical apparatus that can capture the cross‐linguistic variation, based on the Prominence Theory of Focus Realization.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199570959.003.0008

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 565

  1. Abels,, 2003, Proceedings of SALT XIII
  2. Aboh,, 2004, Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax
  3. 2004, Peripheries: Syntactic Edges and Their Effects
  4. ——— (2006). “If We See Focus, You Go Left and I Go Right!”. Paper presented at the International Conference on Bantu Grammar. SOAS, London, April 2006.
  5. Abusch,, 1994, The Scope of Indefinites, Natural Language Semantics, 10.1007/BF01250400 · DOI
  6. Adger,, 2005, Linguistic Inquiry
  7. Aissen,, 1992, Topic and Focus in Mayan, Language, 10.2307/416369 · DOI
  8. Alexiadou,, 1998, Parametrizing AGR: Word Order, V‐Movement and EPP Checking, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 10.1023/A:1006090432389 · DOI
  9. 2000, Greek Syntax: A Principles and Parameters Perspective, Journal of Modern Greek Linguistics, 10.1075/jgl.1.09ale · DOI
  10. Alexopoulou,, 2002, On Linkhood, Topicalization, and Clitic Left Dislocation, Journal of Linguistics, 10.1017/S0022226702001445 · DOI
  11. Allan,, 1973, A Grammar of Buem: The Lelemi Language, School of Oriental and African Studies.
  12. Almor,, 1999, Noun‐Phrase Anaphora and Focus: The Informational Load Hypothesis, Psychological Review, 10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.748 · DOI
  13. Ameka,, 1992, Proceedings of the Kwa Comparative Syntax Workshop
  14. Amiridze,, 2006, Reflexivization Strategies in Georgian
  15. Anderson,, 1984, On Representations in Morphology: Case, Agreement, and Inversion in Georgian, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 10.1007/BF00133281 · DOI
  16. Angantýsson,, 2001, Skandinavísk orðaröð í íslenskum aukasetningum” [Scandinavian Word Order in Embedded Clauses in Icelandic],, Íslenskt mál
  17. Ariel,, 1990, Accessing NP Antecedents
  18. Arnold,, 1998, Reference Form and Discourse Patterns
  19. Arnold,, 1999, Marking Salience: The Similarity of Topic and Focus
  20. 2000, The Immediate Use of Gender Information: Eyetracking Evidence of the Time‐Course of Pronoun Resolution, Cognition
  21. Aronson,, 1994, Non‐Slavic Languages of the USSR, Papers from the Fourth Conference
  22. Asher,, 1993, Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse., 10.1007/978-94-011-1715-9 · DOI
  23. 2003, Logics of Conversation.
  24. 2001, Indirect Speech Acts, Synthese
  25. 2004, Word Meaning and Commonsense Metaphysics
  26. ——— and Reese, B. (2005). “Negative Bias in Polar Questions”, in E. Maier, C. Bary and J. Huitink (eds.), Proceedings of SuB9, 30–43. www.ru.nl/ncs/sub9.
  27. Baker,, 2000, Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theories
  28. 2006, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 10.1007/s11049-005-2235-1 · DOI
  29. 2003, On Directionality and the Structure of the Verb Phrase: Evidence from Nupe, Syntax, 10.1111/1467-9612.00058 · DOI
  30. Ballantyne,, 2004, Givenness as a Ranking Criterion in Centering Theory: Evidence from Yapese, Oceanic Linguistics, 10.1353/ol.2004.0002 · DOI
  31. Baltazani, M. and Jun, S.‐A. (1999). “Focus and Topic Intonation in Greek”, in Proceedings of 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS): 1305–8.
  32. Bar‐Hillel,, 1953, Proceedings of the Symposium on Applications of Communication Theory
  33. Bartels,, 2004, Context‐Dependence in the Analysis of Linguistic Meaning
  34. Barwise,, 1981, Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Language, Linguistics and Philosophy, 10.1007/BF00350139 · DOI
  35. Bates,, 1989, The Crosslinguistic Study of Sentence Processing
  36. Beaver,, 2004, The Optimization of Discourse Anaphora,, Linguistics and Philosophy, 10.1023/B:LING.0000010796.76522.7a · DOI
  37. 2001, A Partial Account of Presupposition Projection, Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 10.1023/A:1008371413822 · DOI
  38. 2007, When Semantics Meets Phonetics: Acoustical Studies of Second Occurrence Focus, Language, 10.1353/lan.2007.0053 · DOI
  39. Beck,, 1996, Quantified Structures as Barriers for LF Movement, Natural Language Semantics, 10.1007/BF00263536 · DOI
  40. 2006, Intervention Effects Follow from Focus Interpretation, Natural Language Semantics, 10.1007/s11050-005-4532-y · DOI
  41. Beckman,, 1997, Guidelines for ToBI Labelling. Version 3.
  42. 1986, Intonational Structure in Japanese and English, Phonology Yearbook
  43. Behaghel,, 1932, Deutsche Syntax IV
  44. Belletti,, 2002, The Structure of IP and CP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures
  45. Bentzen,, 2005, What's the Better Move? On Verb Placement in Standard and Northern Norwegian, Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 10.1017/S0332586505001411 · DOI
  46. 2007, The Degree of Verb Movement in Embedded Clauses in Three Varieties of Norwegian”, in K. Bentzen and Ø. A. Vangsnes (eds.),, Scandinavian Dialect Syntax, Nordlyd
  47. Benz,, 2009, Sprachvergleich: Deutsch‐Russisch, Wortstellung vs. Passivierung, Effekte der Gegebenheitsmanipulation von Satzargumenten Transitiver und Intransitiver Verben
  48. Berg,, 1992, Papers in Laboratory Phonology II: Gesture, Segment, Prosody
  49. Berman,, 1987, University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers
  50. Besten,, 1977, On the Interaction of Root Transformations and Lexical Deletive Rules
  51. Bhatt,, 2001, The Blackwell Companion to Syntax
  52. Biberauer,, 2005, Changing EPP‐Parameters in the History of English: Accounting for Variation and Change, English Language and Linguistics, 10.1017/S1360674305001528 · DOI
  53. 2006, Minimalist essays
  54. Birch,, 1995, The Effect of Focus on Memory for Words in Sentences, Journal of Memory and Language, 10.1006/jmla.1995.1011 · DOI
  55. Birch,, 1997, Linguistic Focus Affects Eye Movements During Reading, Memory & Cognition, 10.3758/BF03211306 · DOI
  56. 2000, Syntactic Focusing Structures Influence Discourse Processing, Discourse Processes, 10.1207/S15326950dp3003_4 · DOI
  57. Birner,, 2004, The Handbook of Pragmatics
  58. Bobaljik,, 2002, Realizing Germanic Inflection: Why Morphology does Not Drive Syntax, Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 10.1023/A:1023669927250 · DOI
  59. 1998, Two Heads aren't Always Better than One, Syntax
  60. Bochvar,, 1981, On a Three‐Valued Logical Calculus and its Application to the Analysis of the Paradoxes of the Classical Extended Functional Calculus, History and Philosophy of Logic, 10.1080/01445348108837023 · DOI
  61. Boeder,, 1989, Configurationality: The Typology of Asymmetries
  62. Borkin,, 1971, Papers from the 7th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society
  63. Bošković,, 2000, Step by step: Essays on Minimalism in Honor of Howard Lasnik
  64. Breheny,, 2008, A New Look and the Semantics and Pragmatics of Numerically Modified Noun Phrases, Journal of Semantics, 10.1093/jos/ffm016 · DOI
  65. Broadbent,, 1973, In Defence of Empirical Psychology
  66. Bródy,, 1990, Some Remarks on the Focus Field in Hungarian”, in, UCL Working Papers in Linguistics
  67. 1991, Approaches to Hungarian
  68. 1995, Approaches to Hungarian
  69. Bruce,, 1977, Swedish Word Accents in Sentence Perspective
  70. Buell,, 2005, Issues in Zulu Verbal Morphosyntax
  71. 2006, The Zulu Conjoint/Disjoint Verb Alternation: Focus or Constituency?, ZAS Papers in Linguistics
  72. Büring,, 1997, The Great Scope Inversion Conspiracy, Linguistics and Philosophy, 10.1023/A:1005397026866 · DOI
  73. 2001, Competition in Syntax
  74. 2003, On D‐trees, Beans, and B‐accents, Linguistics and Philosophy, 10.1023/A:1025887707652 · DOI
  75. 2006, The Architecture of Focus
  76. ——— (2008). Been there, Marked that—a Tentative Theory of Second Occurrence Focus. Revised manuscript. To appear in M. Kanazawa and C. Tancredi (eds.).
  77. 2001, Focus‐related Word Order Variation without the NSR: A Prosody‐Based Crosslinguistic Analysis, Syntax at Santa Cruz
  78. Cahill,, 2007, Aspects of the Morphology and Phonology of Konni
  79. Carlson,, 1983, Dialogue Game: An Approach to Discourse Analysis
  80. Cat,, 2002, French Dislocation
  81. Chafe,, 1970, Meaning and the Structure of Language
  82. 1976, Subject and topic
  83. Chambers,, 1998, Structural Parallelism and Discourse Coherence: A Test of Centering Theory, 10.1006/jmla.1998.2575 · DOI
  84. Cheng, L. and Downing, L. (2006). Phonology and Syntax at the Right Edge in Zulu. Paper presented at the Prosody‐Syntax Interface Workshop, University College London, October 2006.
  85. 2001, Licensing WH‐in‐situ, Syntax
  86. Chierchia,, 1995, Dynamics of Meaning, 10.7208/chicago/9780226104515.001.0001 · DOI
  87. 1998, Reference to Kinds Across Languages, Natural Language Semantics, 10.1023/A:1008324218506 · DOI
  88. Chomsky,, 1981, Lectures on government and binding
  89. Cinque,, 1993, A Null Theory of Phrase and Compound Stress, Linguistic Inquiry
  90. Clark,, 1972, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80087-2 · DOI
  91. 1973, Cognitive development and the acquisition of language
  92. Clark,, 1977, Psychology and Language: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics
  93. 1977, Discourse Production and Comprehension
  94. Cohen,, 2001, Natural Language Semantics, 10.1023/A:1017913406219 · DOI
  95. Cohen,, 1990, Intentions in Communication, 10.7551/mitpress/3839.001.0001 · DOI
  96. Collins,, 1995, The Indirect Object Construction in English: an Informational Approach, Linguistics, 10.1515/ling.1995.33.1.35 · DOI
  97. Comrie,, 1984, Some Formal Properties of Focus in Modern Eastern Armenian, Annual Armenian Linguistics
  98. Cowles,, 2003, Processing Information Structure: Evidence from Comprehension and Production
  99. 2007, Linguistic and Cognitive Prominence in Anaphor Resolution: Topic, Constrastive Focus and Pronouns, Topoi, 10.1007/s11245-006-9004-6 · DOI
  100. Crawley,, 1990, Reference in Single Sentences and in Texts, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 10.1007/BF01077416 · DOI
  101. Creissels,, 1996, Conjunctive and Disjunctive Verb Forms in Setswana, South African Journal of African Languages, 10.1080/02572117.1996.10587127 · DOI
  102. Cresswell,, 1982, Linguistics and Philosophy, 10.1007/BF00355585 · DOI
  103. Cresti,, 1995, Indefinite Topics
  104. Csirmaz,, 2004, Verb Clusters. A Study of Hungarian, German, and Dutch
  105. Culicover,, 1992, English Tag Questions in Universal Grammar, Lingua, 10.1016/0024-3841(92)90042-H · DOI
  106. Cutler,, 1979, Semantic Focus and Sentence Comprehension, Cognition, 10.1016/0010-0277(79)90010-6 · DOI
  107. Delin,, 1990, A Psychological Investigation of the Processing of Cleft Constructions
  108. Demuth,, 1997, Presentational Focus and Thematic Structure in Comparative Bantu, Journal of African Languages and Linguistics, 10.1515/jall.1997.18.1.1 · DOI
  109. Déprez,, 1989, On the Typology of Syntactic Positions and the Nature of Chains
  110. 1990, Two Ways of Moving the Verb in French, MIT Working Papers on Linguistics
  111. Diesing,, 1992, Indefinites
  112. 1997, Yiddish VP order and the Typology of Object Movement in Germanic, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 10.1023/A:1005778326537 · DOI
  113. Dik,, 1997, The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part I: The Structure of the Clause
  114. Dikken,, 1995, Particles: On the Syntax of Verb‐particle, Triadic, and Causative Constructions, 10.1093/oso/9780195091342.001.0001 · DOI
  115. Ding,, 1998, Fundamentals of Prinmi (Pumi): A Tibeto‐Burman Language of Northwestern Yunnan, China
  116. Dittmer,, 1998, Studien zur Wortstellung—Satzgliedstellung in der althochdeutschen Tatianübersetzung, 10.13109/9783666203497 · DOI
  117. Du, 2003, Preferred Argument Structure: Grammar as Architecture for Function
  118. Durbin,, 1978, Papers in Mayan Linguistics
  119. Ebert,, 2004, Proceedings of NELS 34
  120. 2007, Proceedings of the Sinn und Bedeutung XI (11th annual meeting of the Gesellschaft für Semantik)
  121. Ehrich,, 1983, Discourse Organization and Sentence Form: The Structure of Room Descriptions in Dutch, Discourse Processes, 10.1080/01638538309544561 · DOI
  122. É., 1987, Configurationality in Hungarian
  123. 1995, Discourse‐Configurational Languages
  124. 1996, Nyelv, nyelvész, társadalom
  125. 1998, Identificational Focus versus Information Focus, Language, 10.2307/417867 · DOI
  126. 1998, Multiple Topic, one Focus?, Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 10.1023/A:1009614223777 · DOI
  127. 1998, Constituent Order in the Languages of Europe
  128. 2003, Word Order and Scrambling, 10.1002/9780470758403.ch2 · DOI
  129. 2006, Architecture of Focus
  130. É., 2006, Event structure and the left periphery, 10.1007/978-1-4020-4755-8_9 · DOI
  131. 2006, Jól megoldottuk? Rosszul oldottuk meg? Az összefoglaló és a kirekesztő kifejezést tartalmazó mondatok szórendjének magyarázata, Magyar Nyelv
  132. 2008, Free Word Order, (Non‐)configurationality, and Phases, Linguistic Inquiry, 10.1162/ling.2008.39.3.441 · DOI
  133. Endriss,, 2009, Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy
  134. Endriss,, 2008, Event Structures in Linguistic Form and Interpretation
  135. Erguvanli,, 1984, The Function of Word Order in Turkish Grammar.
  136. Ernst,, 2002, The Syntax of Adjuncts
  137. 2003, Modifying adjuncts
  138. Erteschik‐Shir,, 1997, The Dynamics of Focus Structure
  139. 2007, Information Structure: The Syntax‐Discourse Interface
  140. Evans,, 1993, Human Reasoning: The Psychology of Deduction
  141. Fanselow,, 2001, Features, θ‐Roles, and Free Constituent Order, Linguistic Inquiry, 10.1162/002438901750372513 · DOI
  142. ——— (2003). “Münchhausen‐Style Head Movement and the Analysis of Verb Second”, in A. Mahajan (ed.), Head Movement and Syntactic Theory 10 of UCLA/Potsdam Working Papers in Linguistics.
  143. Fauconnier,, 1975, Papers from the 11th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society
  144. Féry,, 2006, On Information Structure: Meaning and Form
  145. 2004, Working Papers of the SFB632, Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure (ISIS)
  146. 2009, The Phonology of Second Occurrence Focus, Journal of Linguistics, 10.1017/S0022226709005702 · DOI
  147. 2008, Pitch Accent Scaling on Given, New and Focused Constituents in German, Journal of Phonetics, 10.1016/j.wocn.2008.05.001 · DOI
  148. 2006, Focus Projection and Prosodic Prominence in Nested Foci, Language, 10.1353/lan.2006.0031 · DOI
  149. 2005, Sisterhood and Tonal Scaling, Studia Linguistica, 10.1111/j.1467-9582.2005.00127.x · DOI
  150. Fiedler,, 1998, Afrikanische Sprachen im Brennpunkt der Forschung. Linguistische Beiträge zum 12. Afrikanistentag, Berlin, 3.–6. Oktober 1996
  151. 2006, Focus Expressions in Yom, Cahiers Voltaïques / Gur Papers
  152. 2007, Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure (ISIS)
  153. 2008, The Expression of Information Structure: A Cross‐linguistic Survey in Speech Production
  154. 2005, Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure
  155. ——— ——— (2007). “Focal Aspects in the Lelemi Verb System”, Ms. (submitted to Journal of West African Languages).
  156. Fintel,, 1994, Restrictions on Quantifier Domains
  157. Foos,, 1980, Constructing Maps from Sentences, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 10.1037/0278-7393.6.1.25 · DOI
  158. Foraker,, 2007, The Role of Prominence in Pronoun Resolution: Active Versus Passive Representations, Journal of Memory and Language, 10.1016/j.jml.2006.07.004 · DOI
  159. Fox, D. (2006). “Free Choice and a Theory of Scalar Implicature”, Manuscript, MIT. · DOI
  160. Frascarelli,, 2000, The Syntax‐Phonology Interface in Focus and Topic Constructions in Italian, 10.1007/978-94-015-9500-1 · DOI
  161. Fretheim,, 1992, The Effect of Intonation on a Type of Scalar Implicature, Journal of Pragmatics, 10.1016/0378-2166(92)90105-K · DOI
  162. Frey,, 2000, ZAS Papers in Linguistics
  163. 2001, About the Whereabouts of Indefinites, Theoretical Linguistics, 10.1515/thli.2001.27.2-3.137 · DOI
  164. 2004, A Medial Topic Position for German, Linguistische Berichte
  165. ——— (2005). “Zur Syntax der linken Peripherie im Deutschen”, to appear in F. d'Avis (ed.), Deutsche Syntax: Empirie und Theorie, Göteborger Germanistische Forschungen.
  166. Fuchs,, 1976, Lingua, 10.1016/0024-3841(76)90016-4 · DOI
  167. Gärtner,, 2001, Are there V2 Relative Clauses in German?, Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics
  168. Geenhoven,, 1998, Semantic Incorporation and Indefinite Descriptions: Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Noun Incorporation in West Greenlandic
  169. Gernsbacher,, 1988, Accessing Sentence Participants: The Advantage of First Mention, Journal of Memory and Language, 10.1016/0749-596X(88)90016-2 · DOI
  170. 1992, Pragmatics of Word Order Flexibility
  171. Geurts,, 2006, Indefiniteness and Plurality
  172. Giannakidou,, 1995, Formal Linguistics Society of Mid‐America (FLSM)
  173. Ginzburg,, 2000, Interrogative Investigations: The Form, Meaning, and Use of English Interrogatives
  174. Givón,, 1983, Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross‐language Study, 10.1075/tsl.3 · DOI
  175. Godjevac,, 2000, Intonation, Word Order and Focus Projection in Serbo‐Croatian
  176. Gordon,, 2007, Intonational and Meaning from a Cross‐linguistic Perspective
  177. Gordon,, 1993, Pronouns, Names, and the Centering of Attention in Discourse, Cognitive Science, 10.1207/s15516709cog1703_1 · DOI
  178. Green,, 2003, Research in Afroasiatic Grammar II
  179. Grewendorf,, 2002, Left Dislocation as Movement”, in S. Mauck and J. Mittelstaedt (eds.),, Georgetown University Working Papers in Theoretical Linguistics
  180. Groenendijk,, 1984, Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers
  181. 1990, Dynamic Predicate Logic, Linguistics and Philosophy, 10.1007/BF00628304 · DOI
  182. 1997, Handbook of Logic and Language, 10.1016/B978-044481714-3/50024-2 · DOI
  183. Grohmann,, 2000, Prolific Peripheries: A Radical View from the Left
  184. Grosz,, 1986, Towards a Computational Theory of Discourse Interpretation.
  185. 1995, Centering: A Framework for Modelling the Local Coherence of Discourse, Computational Linguistics
  186. Guerzoni,, 2004, Even‐NPIs in yes/no questions, Natural Language Semantics, 10.1007/s11050-004-8739-0 · DOI
  187. Güldemann,, 2003, Present Progressive vis‐à‐vis Predication Focus in Bantu: A Verbal Category between Semantics and Pragmatics, Studies in Language, 10.1075/sl.27.2.05gul · DOI
  188. Gundel,, 1985, Shared knowledge and topicality, Journal of Pragmatics, 10.1016/0378-2166(85)90049-9 · DOI
  189. 1988, Studies in Syntactic Typology
  190. 1993, Cognitive Status and the Form of Referring Expressions in Discourse, Language, 10.2307/416535 · DOI
  191. Gunlogson,, 2003, True to Form: Rising and Falling Declaratives as Questions in English
  192. Gussenhoven,, 1983, Focus, Mode and the Nucleus, Journal of Linguistics, 10.1017/S0022226700007799 · DOI
  193. 1984, On the Grammar and Semantics of Sentence Accents
  194. 1992, Thematic Structure: Its Role in Grammar
  195. Gutiérrez,, 2007, La alternancia sujeto inicial/verbo inicial y la teoría de la optimidad.
  196. Hagstrom,, 1998, Decomposing Questions
  197. Haider,, 2000, Adverb Placement‐Convergence of Structure and Licensing, Theoretical Linguistics, 10.1515/thli.2000.26.1-2.95 · DOI
  198. 2004, Pre‐ and Postverbal Adverbials in OV and VO, Lingua, 10.1016/S0024-3841(03)00051-2 · DOI
  199. 2003, Scrambling: Nontriggered Chain Formation in OV Languages, Journal of German Linguistics
  200. Halle,, 1980, Three Dimensional Phonology, Journal of Linguistic Research

200 of 565 shown

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 182

Metadata

Authors
Büring, D.
Affiliations
University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Büring, Daniel
ORCID
Büring, Daniel
Venue
Information Structure
Publisher
Oxford University PressOxford
Published
2009-10-29
Pages
177-205
DOI
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199570959.003.0008
OpenAlex
W2501972551
Cited by
182
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 6
FWCI
31.89
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
  • Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Linguistic Studies and Language Acquisition
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
Keywords
cross-linguistic variation, pitch accent, prosodic phrasing, constituent ordering, Germanic languages

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Towards a typology of focus realization. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199570959.003.0008
The paper
Büring, D. (2009). Towards a typology of focus realization. Information Structure. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof%3Aoso/9780199570959.003.0008