Cover not available

In: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

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

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)
Published online: 2 August 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.199.01ada
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
References (47)
References
Aissen, Judith. 1992. Topic and focus in Mayan. Language 68(1): 43–80. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baumann, Stefan & Grice, Martine. 2006. The intonation of accessibility. Journal of Pragmatics 38(10): 1636–1657. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Breen, Mara, Fedorenko, Evelina, Wagner, Michael & Gibson, Edward. 2010. Acoustic correlates of information structure. Language and Cognitive Processes 25(7): 1044–1098. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Calhoun, Sasha. 2010. The centrality of metrical structure in signalling information structure: A probabilistic perspective. Language 86(1): 1–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. The theme/rheme distinction: Accent type or relative prominence? Journal of Phonetics 40: 329–349. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chen, Yiya. 2008. The acoustic realization of vowels of Shanghai Chinese. Journal of Phonetics 36(4): 629–648. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. Post-focus F0 compression – Now you see it, now you don’t. Journal of Phonetics 38: 517–525. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chen, Yiya & Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2008. Emphasis and tonal implementation in Standard Chinese. Journal of Phonetics 36: 724–746. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clopper, Cynthia G. & Tonhauser, Judith. 2013. The prosody of focus in Paraguayan Guaraní. International Journal of American Linguistics 79(2): 219–251. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology (2nd edition). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
D’Imperio, Mariapaola. 2001. Focus and tonal structure in Neapolitan Italian. Speech Communication 33: 339–356. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline & Kügler, Frank. 2008. Pitch accent scaling on given, new and focused constituents in German. Journal of Phonetics 36: 680–703. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frota, Sonia. 2000. Prosody and Focus in European Portuguese: Phonological Phrasing and Intonation. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1983. A Semantic Analysis of the Nuclear Tones of English. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hale, Ken. 1983. Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1(1): 5–47. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hartmann, Katharina & Zimmerman, Malte. 2009. Morphological focus marking in Gùrùntùm. Lingua 119(9): 1340–1365. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Reh, Mechtild. 1984. Grammaticalization and Reanalysis in African Languages. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Katz, Jonah & Selkirk, Elizabeth. 2011. Contrastive focus vs. discourse-new. Evidence from phonetic prominence in English. Language 87(4): 771–816. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ladd, Robert D. 2008. Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Rialland, Annie & Robert, Stéphane. 2001. The intonational system of Wolof. Linguistics 39: 893–939. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1984. Phonology and Syntax: The Relation Between Sound and Structure. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1986. On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology 3: 371–405. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Valin Jr., Robert D. 2005. Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Cambridge: CUKP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Verhoeven, Elisabeth & Skopeteas, Stavros. 2015. Licensing focus constructions in Yucatec Maya. International Journal of American Linguistics 81(1): 1–40. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Welby, Pauline. 2003. Effects of pitch accent position, type, and status on focus projection. Language and Speech 46: 53–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Xu, Yi. 1999. Effects of tone and focus on the formation and alignment of F0 contours. Journal of Phonetics 27(1): 55–105. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Borchmann, Simon
2025. Framing as interaction. In Framing in Interaction [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 354], ► pp. 23 ff. DOI logo
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 3 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue