Bart Geurts and Rob van der Sandt have prepared “a response”:http://www.kun.nl/phil/tfl/bart/papers/focusagain.pdf to “the peer commentaries”:http://semantics-online.org/2004/02/update_open_peer_review_geurts_and_van_der_sandt_on_focus on their paper “Interpreting focus”:http://www.kun.nl/phil/tfl/bart/papers/focus.pdf.

Bart Geurts and Rob van der Sandt. “Interpreting focus again”:http://www.kun.nl/phil/tfl/bart/papers/focusagain.pdf. To appear in Theoretical Linguistics.

bq. How to respond to such a fine collection of commentaries which are, without exception, thorough, to the point, constructive, and full of suggestions for improvement? The best response by far would be a radical overhaul of the target article–but that is against the rules. The next-best thing would be a page-by-page discussion of each commentary separately–which the editor wouldn’t allow. So we have no choice but to make a selection of the many good points that have been raised, and hope against hope that we will manage not to distort them too much.