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. 114
Aissen, Judith
1992Topic 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
2006Tonal 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
2006The intonation of accessibility. Journal of Pragmatics 38(10): 1636–1657. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breen, Mara, Fedorenko, Evelina, Wagner, Michael & Gibson, Edward
2010Acoustic correlates of information structure. Language and Cognitive Processes 25(7): 1044–1098. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Büring, Daniel
2009Towards 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
2010The centrality of metrical structure in signalling information structure: A probabilistic perspective. Language 86(1): 1–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012The theme/rheme distinction: Accent type or relative prominence? Journal of Phonetics 40: 329–349. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, Yiya
2008The acoustic realization of vowels of Shanghai Chinese. Journal of Phonetics 36(4): 629–648. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010Post-focus F0 compression – Now you see it, now you don’t. Journal of Phonetics 38: 517–525. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, Yiya & Gussenhoven, Carlos
2008Emphasis and tonal implementation in Standard Chinese. Journal of Phonetics 36: 724–746. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clopper, Cynthia G. & Tonhauser, Judith
2013The prosody of focus in Paraguayan Guaraní. International Journal of American Linguistics 79(2): 219–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1989Language 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.
2002Accent and reference resolution in spoken-language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 47: 292–314. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
D’Imperio, Mariapaola
2001Focus and tonal structure in Neapolitan Italian. Speech Communication 33: 339–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Féry, Caroline & Kügler, Frank
2008Pitch accent scaling on given, new and focused constituents in German. Journal of Phonetics 36: 680–703. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fowler, Carol A. & Housum, Jonathan
1987Talkers’ 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
2000Prosody and Focus in European Portuguese: Phonological Phrasing and Intonation. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K.
1988Universals 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
1983A Semantic Analysis of the Nuclear Tones of English. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken
1983Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1(1): 5–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, Katharina & Zimmerman, Malte
2009Morphological focus marking in Gùrùntùm. Lingua 119(9): 1340–1365. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, Katharina & Veenstra, Tonjes
2013Introduction. 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
1984Grammaticalization and Reanalysis in African Languages. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Ito, Kiwako & Speer, Shari R.
2008Anticipatory effects of intonation: Eye movements during instructed visual search. Journal of Memory and Language 58: 541–573. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah
2005Korean 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
2000A 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.
2012A 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
2011Contrastive focus vs. discourse-new. Evidence from phonetic prominence in English. Language 87(4): 771–816. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ladd, Robert D.
2008Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
1994Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Charles N. & Thompson, Sandra A.
1976Subject 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
2013The 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
1992Is 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
1990The 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
2001The intonational system of Wolof. Linguistics 39: 893–939. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O.
1984Phonology and Syntax: The Relation Between Sound and Structure. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1986On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology 3: 371–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael
1976Hierarchy 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
2010Focus 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.
1987Opposite 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.
2005Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Cambridge: CUKP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Venditti, Jennifer J., Maekawa, Kikuo & Beckman, Mary E.
2008Prominence 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
2015Licensing 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.
2008Interpreting pitch accents in online comprehension: H* vs. L H*. Cognitive Science 32: 1232–1244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Welby, Pauline
2003Effects of pitch accent position, type, and status on focus projection. Language and Speech 46: 53–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xu, Yi
1999Effects of tone and focus on the formation and alignment of F0 contours. Journal of Phonetics 27(1): 55–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Simmul, Carl Eric
2023. Information structure of converb constructions: Estonian -des, -mata and -maks constructions. Folia Linguistica 0:0 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 march 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.