Abstract The goal of this paper is to investigate the relationship between focus and the inferences that listeners derive from utterances. While the function of focus is to generate a set of alternatives to the focused element, it can also evoke the implicature that the statement does not hold for the contextual alternatives, which is referred to as exhaustive meaning. Whether focus is exhaustive is a matter of cross-linguistic variation. This paper aims to assess exhaustive inferences in Serbian triggered by focus in situ marked by prosodic prominence and in the preverbal position, canonical sentences with neutral intonation, and the exclusive particle samo ‘only’. The participants were presented with the recorded test items, after which they were asked to express their judgement about the possibility of the contextual alternatives using a scale. The results indicated that there was no interpretative difference regarding exhaustive meaning between the sentences with the focused words marked with prosodic prominence and those with unmarked intonation. However, the sentences with the preverbal focused target word were judged as significantly more exhaustive than the canonical sentences with default intonation. Finally, the sentences with the focus particle samo were interpreted mostly as not allowing other contextual interpretations.

中文翻译：

---

焦点和焦点助词 samo 对塞尔维亚语语境替代排除的影响

摘要 本文的目的是研究焦点与听众从话语中得出的推论之间的关系。虽然焦点的功能是为焦点元素生成一组备选方案，但它也可以唤起该陈述不适用于上下文备选方案的暗示，这被称为穷举意义。焦点是否详尽是跨语言变化的问题。本文旨在评估塞尔维亚语中由以韵律突出和前动词位置为标志的焦点、具有中性语调的规范句子和唯一的助词 samo 'only' 引发的详尽推论。向参与者展示了记录的测试项目，之后，他们被要求使用量表表达他们对上下文替代方案的可能性的判断。结果表明，重点词标有韵律突出的句子与未标明语调的句子在穷尽意义的解释上没有差异。然而，与具有默认语调的规范句子相比，具有前语言焦点目标词的句子被认为更加详尽。最后，带有焦点助词 samo 的句子大多被解释为不允许其他上下文解释。带有重点目标词的句子被认为比带有默认语调的规范句子更详尽。最后，带有焦点助词 samo 的句子大多被解释为不允许其他上下文解释。带有重点目标词的句子被认为比带有默认语调的规范句子更详尽。最后，带有焦点助词 samo 的句子大多被解释为不允许其他上下文解释。