Cover not available
Part of
Information Structure in Lesser-described Languages: Studies in prosody and syntax
Edited by Evangelia Adamou, Katharina Haude and Martine Vanhove
[Studies in Language Companion Series 199] 2018
► pp. 1–13

Chapter 1
Investigating information structure in lesser-known and endangered languages

An introduction

| CNRS (LACITO, SEDYL & LLACAN)
| CNRS (LACITO, SEDYL & LLACAN)
| CNRS (LACITO, SEDYL & LLACAN)
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.How can information structure be analysed based on corpora of spoken language?
  • 3.Prosodic encoding of information structure categories
  • 4.Syntactic encoding of information structure categories
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 2 August 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.199.01ada
References (47)
References
Aissen, Judith. 1992. Topic and focus in Mayan. Language 68(1): 43–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aldridge, Edith. To appear. Predicate, subject, and cleft in Austronesian languages. In Proceedings of AFLA 17, Andrei Antonenko, Daniel Finer, Yu-an Lu, Ileana Paul & Maria Polinsky (eds). <[URL]>
Arvaniti, Amalia, Ladd, Robert D. & Mennen, Ineke. 2006. Tonal association and tonal alignment: Evidence from Greek polar questions and contrastive statements. Language and Speech 49: 421–450. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baumann, Stefan & Grice, Martine. 2006. The intonation of accessibility. Journal of Pragmatics 38(10): 1636–1657. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breen, Mara, Fedorenko, Evelina, Wagner, Michael & Gibson, Edward. 2010. Acoustic correlates of information structure. Language and Cognitive Processes 25(7): 1044–1098. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2009. Towards a typology of focus realization. In Information Structure: Theoretical, Typological, and Experimental Perspectives, Malte Zimmermann & Caroline Féry (eds), 177–205. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Calhoun, Sasha. 2010. The centrality of metrical structure in signalling information structure: A probabilistic perspective. Language 86(1): 1–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. The theme/rheme distinction: Accent type or relative prominence? Journal of Phonetics 40: 329–349. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, Yiya. 2008. The acoustic realization of vowels of Shanghai Chinese. Journal of Phonetics 36(4): 629–648. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Post-focus F0 compression – Now you see it, now you don’t. Journal of Phonetics 38: 517–525. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, Yiya & Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2008. Emphasis and tonal implementation in Standard Chinese. Journal of Phonetics 36: 724–746. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clopper, Cynthia G. & Tonhauser, Judith. 2013. The prosody of focus in Paraguayan Guaraní. International Journal of American Linguistics 79(2): 219–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology (2nd edition). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dahan, Delphine, Tanenhaus, Michael K. & Chambers, Craig G. 2002. Accent and reference resolution in spoken-language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 47: 292–314. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
D’Imperio, Mariapaola. 2001. Focus and tonal structure in Neapolitan Italian. Speech Communication 33: 339–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Féry, Caroline & Kügler, Frank. 2008. Pitch accent scaling on given, new and focused constituents in German. Journal of Phonetics 36: 680–703. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fowler, Carol A. & Housum, Jonathan. 1987. Talkers’ signaling of “new” and “old” words in speech and listeners’ perception and use of the distinction. Journal of Memory and Language 26: 489–504. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frota, Sonia. 2000. Prosody and Focus in European Portuguese: Phonological Phrasing and Intonation. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K. 1988. Universals of topic-comment structure. In Studies in Syntactic Typology [Typological Studies in Language 17], Michael Hammond, Edith A. Moravcsik & Jessica Wirth (eds), 209–242. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1983. A Semantic Analysis of the Nuclear Tones of English. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken. 1983. Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1(1): 5–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, Katharina & Zimmerman, Malte. 2009. Morphological focus marking in Gùrùntùm. Lingua 119(9): 1340–1365. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, Katharina & Veenstra, Tonjes. 2013. Introduction. In Cleft Structures [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 208], Katharina Hartmann & Tonjes Veenstra (eds), 1–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Reh, Mechtild. 1984. Grammaticalization and Reanalysis in African Languages. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Ito, Kiwako & Speer, Shari R. 2008. Anticipatory effects of intonation: Eye movements during instructed visual search. Journal of Memory and Language 58: 541–573. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah. 2005. Korean intonational phonology and prosodic transcription. In Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing, Sun-Ah Jun (ed.), 201–229. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah & Fougeron, Cécile. 2000. A phonological model of French intonation. In Intonation: Analysis, Modeling and Technology, Antonis Botinis (ed.), 209–242. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kahn, Jason M. & Arnold, Jennifer E. 2012. A processing-centered look at the contribution of givenness to durational reduction. Journal of Memory and Language 67: 311–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Katz, Jonah & Selkirk, Elizabeth. 2011. Contrastive focus vs. discourse-new. Evidence from phonetic prominence in English. Language 87(4): 771–816. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ladd, Robert D. 2008. Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Charles N. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1976. Subject and topic: A new typology of languages. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed.), 457–489. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Matić, Dejan & Wedgwood, Daniel. 2013. The meanings of focus: The significance of an interpretation-based category in cross-linguistic analysis. Journal of Linguistics 49(1): 127–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1992. Is basic word order universal? In Pragmatics of Word Order Flexibility [Typological Studies in Language 22], Doris L. Payne (ed.), 15–61. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. & Hirschberg, Julia. 1990. The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In Intentions in Communication, Philip R. Cohen, Jerry Morgan, & Martha E. Pollack (eds), 271–311. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rialland, Annie & Robert, Stéphane. 2001. The intonational system of Wolof. Linguistics 39: 893–939. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1984. Phonology and Syntax: The Relation Between Sound and Structure. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1986. On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology 3: 371–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, Robert M. W. Dixon (ed.), 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Skopeteas, Stavros & Fanselow, Gisbert. 2010. Focus types and argument assymetries. A cross-linguistic study in language production. In Contrastive Information Structure [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 165], Carsten Breul & Edward Göbbel (eds), 169–197. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Terken, Jacques & Noteboom, Sieb G. 1987. Opposite effects of accentuation and deaccentuation on verification latencies for Given and New information. Language and Cognitive Process 2: 145–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin Jr., Robert D. 2005. Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Cambridge: CUKP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Venditti, Jennifer J., Maekawa, Kikuo & Beckman, Mary E. 2008. Prominence marking in the Japanese intonation system. In Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, Shigeru Miyagawa & Mamoru Saito (eds), 456–512. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, Elisabeth & Skopeteas, Stavros. 2015. Licensing focus constructions in Yucatec Maya. International Journal of American Linguistics 81(1): 1–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watson, Duane G., Tanenhaus, Michael K. & Gunlogson, Christine A. 2008. Interpreting pitch accents in online comprehension: H* vs. L H*. Cognitive Science 32: 1232–1244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Welby, Pauline. 2003. Effects of pitch accent position, type, and status on focus projection. Language and Speech 46: 53–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xu, Yi. 1999. Effects of tone and focus on the formation and alignment of F0 contours. Journal of Phonetics 27(1): 55–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Simmul, Carl Eric
2024. Information structure of converb constructions: Estonian -des, -mata and -maks constructions. Folia Linguistica 58:1 ► pp. 29 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.