1983
DOI: 10.2307/414063
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Stress and Focus in English

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
48
0
3

Year Published

2000
2000
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 153 publications
(53 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
2
48
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Ladd 1996, Lambrecht & Michaelis 1998and Zubizarreta 1998. Evidence from languages which mark focus morphologically or by focus-movement (see Dik 1981) corroborate the assumption made for English since Rochemont (1978Rochemont ( , 1986 and Culicover & Rochemont (1983) that the wh-element is not only the focus of the question but that it also identifies the focus of the answer. Drubig (1998) in a recent proposal argues that wh-questions (as well as clefts) constitute a particular type of focusing construction, which exhibits connectedness effects, the so-called completive focus construction: "it specifies an open proposition which functions as the background and the wh-operator induces a focus effect on the constituent filling the gap" (p. 28).…”
Section: Basic Assumptions About Focussupporting
confidence: 60%
“…Ladd 1996, Lambrecht & Michaelis 1998and Zubizarreta 1998. Evidence from languages which mark focus morphologically or by focus-movement (see Dik 1981) corroborate the assumption made for English since Rochemont (1978Rochemont ( , 1986 and Culicover & Rochemont (1983) that the wh-element is not only the focus of the question but that it also identifies the focus of the answer. Drubig (1998) in a recent proposal argues that wh-questions (as well as clefts) constitute a particular type of focusing construction, which exhibits connectedness effects, the so-called completive focus construction: "it specifies an open proposition which functions as the background and the wh-operator induces a focus effect on the constituent filling the gap" (p. 28).…”
Section: Basic Assumptions About Focussupporting
confidence: 60%
“…Movement that represents discourse functions is not a new idea, and goes back to early seventies (Jackendoff 1973, Culicover and Rochemont 1983, and Rochemont 1986). Some authors have considered focus movement as an instance of Move triggered by a functional feature (Bailyn 2001, Kiss (to appear), among others).…”
Section: Focus Movement In Persianmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Informational focus would then be non-corrective. This distinction between contrastive and informational focus is used by Culicover and Rochemont (1983), Vallduví and Engdhal (1996) or Gussenhoven (2008). While acknowledging the confusion present in the literature, this paper is consistent with the terminology that has been used in other intonational studies concerned with the realization of focus in Peninsular Spanish, namely Fernández-Soriano (2013, 2016), as these directly inform the present study.…”
Section: )mentioning
confidence: 99%