The linguistic realisation of information packaging

There is increasing awareness of the large degree of crosslinguistic diversity involved in the structural realisation of information packaging (or information structure). Whereas English and many Germanic languages primarily exploit intonation for informational purposes , in other languages, like Catalan, syntax plays the primary role in the realisation of information packaging and intonation is reduced to a secondary role. In yet another group of languages the primary structural correlate is morphology. This paper provides a contrastive analysis of the structural properties of information packaging in a number of languages. It also contains a discussion of some basic issues concerning information packaging and identiies a set of information-packaging primitives that are applied to the crosslinguistic facts.

[1]  T. Givón,et al.  The grammar of referential coherence as mental processing instructions , 1992 .

[2]  Eser Emine Erguvanlı.  The Function of Word Order in Turkish Grammar , 1984 .

[3]  H. Sasse.  The thetic/categorical distinction revisited , 1987 .

[4]  Kees van Deemter.  What's New? A Semantic Perspective on Sentence Accent , 1994, J. Semant..

[5]  Assertion , 2008, Practices of Reason.

[6]  Peter Schlobinski,et al.  On the topic of topic and topic continuity , 1992 .

[7]  Lauri Karttunen,et al.  Discourse Referents , 1969, COLING.

[8]  Bonnie Webber,et al.  So what can we talk about now , 1986 .

[9]  S. Schmerling.  Aspects of English Sentence Stress , 1976 .

[10]  Heles Contreras,et al.  A Theory of Word Order with Special Reference to Spanish , 1977 .

[11]  Michael Halliday,et al.  An Introduction to Functional Grammar , 1985 .

[12]  A. Zaenen.  Contrastive Dislocation in Dutch and Icelandic , 1997 .

[13]  M. Hannay.  Pragmatic function assignment and word order variation in a functional grammar of English , 1991 .

[14]  Ray Jackendoff,et al.  Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar , 1972 .

[15]  Riitta Välimaa‐Blum,et al.  Finnish existential clauses – their syntax, pragmatics and intonation , 1988 .

[16]  Enric Vallduví,et al.  Accenting Phenomena, Association With Focus, and the Recursiveness of Focus-Ground , 1998 .

[17]  박승윤,et al.  영어에서의 Functional Sentence Perspective의 제양상 , 1982 .

[18]  Jeanette K. Gundel,et al.  Cognitive Status and the form of Referring Expressions in Discourse , 1993, The Oxford Handbook of Reference.

[19]  Anna Szabolcsi,et al.  The semantics of topic-focus articulation , 1981 .

[20]  Adrian Akmajian,et al.  Aspects of the grammar of focus in English , 1979 .

[21]  Rosemary J. Stevenson,et al.  Thematic roles, focus and the representation of events , 1994 .

[22]  Rhonda Thwing,et al.  Focus in Vute , 1987 .

[23]  S. Reeves,et al.  Discourse Analysis , 2018, The Study of Language.

[24]  M. Ronat,et al.  Pronoms topiques et pronoms distinctifs , 1979 .

[25]  E. Engdahl,et al.  Information Packaging and Grammar Architecture , 1995 .

[26]  Petr Sgall,et al.  The Meaning Of The Sentence In Its Semantic And Pragmatic Aspects , 1986 .

[27]  Mira Ariel.  Referring and accessibility , 1988, Journal of Linguistics.

[28]  T. Reinhart.  Pragmatics and Linguistics: an analysis of Sentence Topics , 1981, Philosophica.

[29]  Marianne Adams.  From Old French to the theory of pro-drop , 1987 .

[30]  Judy L. Delin,et al.  Properties of It-Cleft Presupposition , 1992, J. Semant..

[31]  M. Halliday.  NOTES ON TRANSITIVITY AND THEME IN ENGLISH. PART 2 , 1967 .

[32]  Nomi Erteschik-Shir.  Wh-questions and focus , 1986 .

[33]  Enric Vallduví,et al.  Detachment in Catalan and information packaging , 1994 .

[34]  Mark Steedman.  Structure and Intonation , 1991 .

[35]  Ellen F. Prince,et al.  On the Syntactic Marking of Presupposed Open Propositions , 1986 .

[36]  Ellen F. Prince,et al.  Topicalization and Left‐Dislocation: A Functional Analysis a , 1984 .

[37]  Deirdre Wilson,et al.  Ordered Entailments: An Alternative to Presuppositional Theories , 1979 .

[38]  J. Bresnan.  Sentence Stress and Syntactic Transformations , 1971 .

[39]  Pieter A. M. Seuren.  Meaning and Grammar , 2009 .

[40]  W. Chafe.  Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view , 1976 .

[41]  S. Garrod,et al.  THE MENTAL REPRESENTATION OF DISCOURSE IN A FOCUSSED MEMORY SYSTEM: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF ANAPHORIC NOUN PHRASES , 1982 .

[42]  Jeroen Groenendijk,et al.  Formal methods in the study of language , 1983 .

[43]  Nomi Erteschik-Shir,et al.  Under stress: a functional explanation of English sentence stress , 1983, Journal of Linguistics.

[44]  Enric Vallduví,et al.  The Informational Component , 1990 .

[45]  SHALOM LAPPIN,et al.  DOMINANCE AND THE FUNCTIONAL EXPLANATION OF ISLAND PHENOMENA , 1979 .

[46]  J. Hart,et al.  On the anatomy of intonation , 1968 .

[47]  Michael Rochemont,et al.  Focus in Generative Grammar , 1986 .

[48]  A. Davison.  Syntactic markedness and the definition of sentence topic , 1984 .

[49]  P. Strawson.  Identifying reference and truth‐values , 2008 .

[50]  G. Puskás.  The wh-criterion in Hungarian , 1992 .

[51]  Jeanette K. Gundel.  The Role of Topic and Comment in Linguistic Theory , 1988 .

[52]  Enric Vallduví Botet.  A preverbal landing site for quantificational operators , 1992 .

[53]  Beryl Hoffman.  Generating Context Appropriate Word Orders in Turkish , 1994, INLG.

[54]  M. Rochemont.  A theory of stylistic rules in English , 1978 .

[55]  John Yen,et al.  Introduction , 2004, CACM.

[56]  D. Napoli.  Elements of tone, stress, and intonation , 1978 .

[57]  E. Prince.  A COMPARISON OF WH-CLEFTS AND IT-CLEFTS IN DISCOURSE , 1978 .

[58]  J. Pierrehumbert.  The phonology and phonetics of English intonation , 1987 .

[59]  Rob A. von der Sandt.  Context and presupposition , 1988 .

[60]  J. Delin.  Presupposition and Shared Knowledge in It-Clefts. , 1995 .

[61]  J. S. Y. Pujols,et al.  Agreement and subjects , 1992 .

[62]  Richard T. Oehrle,et al.  Prosodic Constraints on Dynamic Grammatical Analysis , 1991 .

[63]  Arnim von Stechow,et al.  Topic, Focus and Local Relevance , 1981 .

[64]  Katalin É. Kiss.  The Order and Scope of Operators in the Hungarian Sentence , 1986 .

[65]  Manfred Krifka,et al.  A Compositional Semantics for Multiple Focus Constructions , 1991 .

[66]  Helen Dehoop,et al.  Case Configuration and Noun Phrase Interpretation , 1996 .

[67]  Fred Landman.  Pegs and Alecs , 1986, TARK.

[68]  Susan Rothstein,et al.  Perspectives on phrase structure : heads and licensing , 1993 .

[69]  Petr Sgall.  Contributions to functional syntax, semantics, and language comprehension , 1985 .

[70]  C. F. Hockett.  A Course in Modern Linguistics , 1959 .

[71]  Jeanette K. Gundel.  Universals of topic-comment structure , 1988 .

[72]  E. Prince.  Topicalization, Focus-Movement, and Yiddish-Movement: A Pragmatic Differentiation , 1981 .

[73]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation , 1969 .

[74]  Julia Horvath,et al.  FOCUS in the Theory of Grammar and the Syntax of Hungarian , 1986 .

[75]  Elisabeth Selkirk,et al.  Phonology and syntax , 1984 .

[76]  Enric Vallduví,et al.  Catalan as VOS: evidence from information packaging , 1993 .

[77]  S.-Y. Kuroda,et al.  The categorical and the thetic judgment , 1979 .

[78]  E. Vallduv.  The dynamics of information packaging , 1994 .

[79]  Nomi Erteschik-Shir,et al.  The dynamics of focus structure , 1997 .

[80]  András Komlósy.  Focussing on Focus in Hungarian , 1986 .

[81]  Dominique Sportiche,et al.  The position of subjects , 1991 .

[82]  František Daneš,et al.  Some thoughts on the semantic structure of the sentence , 1968 .

[83]  Nomi Erteschik-Shir,et al.  On the nature of island constraints , 1973 .

[84]  Eva Hajicová.  Focussing- A Meeting Point Linguistics and Artificial Intelligence , 1986, AIMSA.

[85]  Olga Fernández Soriano.  STRONG PRONOUNS IN NULL-SUBJECT LANGUAGES AND THE AVOID PRONOUN PRINCIPLE , 2007 .

[86]  Candace L. Sidner,et al.  Focusing for Interpretation of Pronouns , 1981, CL.