Chapter published in:
When Data Challenges Theory: Unexpected and paradoxical evidence in information structure
Edited by Davide Garassino and Daniel Jacob
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 273] 2022
► pp. 5790
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
2004Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2015Evidentials: Their links with other grammatical categories. Linguistic Typology 19(2): 239–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Austin, John L.
1962How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bach, Kent
1994Conversational impliciture. Mind & Language 9: 124–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, Franz
1900Sketch of the Kwakiutl language. American Anthropologist 2: 708–721. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1910Kwakiutl. An Illustrative Sketch. Washington: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Bocci, Giuliano
2013The Syntax-Prosody Interface. A Cartographic Perspective with Evidence from Italian. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Büring, Daniel
2016(Contrastive) Topic. In The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds), 64–85. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carpenter, Lawrence K.
1982Ecuadorian Quechua: Descriptive Sketch and Variation. PhD dissertation, University of Florida.
Casielles-Suárez, Eugenia
2003Left-dislocated structures in Spanish. Hispania 86(2): 326–338. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L.
1976Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and topics and point of view. In Subject and Topic, Charles Li (ed), 25–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. & Nichols, Joanna
(eds) 1986Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Choi, Hye-Won
1997Information structure, phrase structure and their interface. In Proceedings of the LFG97 Conference, Miriam Butt & Tracy H. King (eds), 1–16. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1965Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cresti, Emanuela
1999Force illocutoire, articulation topic-comment et contours prosodiques en Italien parlé. Faits de Langues 13: 168–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000Corpus di italiano parlato. Introduzione e campioni (Vols. 1–2). Firenze: Accademia della Crusca.Google Scholar
2012The definition of focus in Language into Act Theory (LAcT). In Pragmatics and Prosody: Illocution, Modality, Information Patterning and Speech Annotation, Heliana Mello, Alessandro Panunzi & Tommaso Raso (eds), 39–82. Firenze: Firenze University Press.Google Scholar
2018The illocution-prosody relationship and the information pattern in spontaneous speech according to the Language into Act theory (L-AcT). Linguistik Online 88: 33–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Cesare, Anna-Maria
This volume. To be or not to be focus adverbials? A corpus-driven study of It. anche in spontaneous spoken Italian. In When Data Challenges Theory. Unexpected and Paradoxical Evidence in Information Structure, Davide Garassino & Daniel Jacob eds Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo
De Haan, Ferdinand
1999Evidentiality and epistemic modality: setting boundaries. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, https://​www​.academia​.edu​/755475​/Evidentiality​_and​_epistemic​_modality​_Setting​_boundaries (24 March 2021).
Diessel, Holger & Hetterle, Katja
2011Causal clauses: A cross-linguistic investigation of their structure, meaning and use. In Linguistic Universals and Language Variation, Peter Siemund (ed), 21–52. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donabédian, Anaïd
2001Towards a semasiological account of evidentials: An enunciative approach of -er in Modern Western Armenian. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 421–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Face, Timothy L.
2001Focus and early peak alignment in Spanish intonation. Probus, 13(2): 223–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Face, Timothy L. & D’Imperio, Mariapaola
2005Reconsidering a focal typology: Evidence from Spanish and Italian. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 17(2): 271–289.Google Scholar
Faller, Martina T.
2002Semantics and Pragmatics of Evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. PhD dissertation, University of Stanford.
Fanselow, Gisbert, Lenertová, Denisa & Weskott, Thomas
2008Studies on the acceptability of object movement to Spec, CP. In The Discourse Potential of Underspecified Structures, Anita Steube (ed), 413–438. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Feldhausen, Ingo
2016The relation between prosody and syntax: The case of different types of left-dislocations in Spanish. In Interdisciplinary Approaches to Intonational Grammar in Ibero-Romance Intonation, Meghan Armstrong, Nicholas Henriksen & Maria del Mar Vanrell (eds), 153–180. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fortescue, Michael
2003Evidentiality in West Greenlandic. A case of scattered coding. In Studies in Evidentiality, Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Richard M. W. Dixon (eds), 291–306. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A.
2001Evidentiality, authority, responsibility, and entitlement in English conversation. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 11(2): 167–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara
2000The Syntax-Phonology Interface in Focus and Topic Constructions in Italian. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara & Hinterhölzl, Roland
2007Types of Topics in German and Italian. In On Information Structure, Meaning and Form, Susanne Winkler & Kerstin Schwabe (eds), 87–116. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frota, Sónia
2002The prosody of focus: A case-study with cross-linguistic implications. Talk presented at the Speech Prosody Conference, Aix-en-Provence 2002.Google Scholar
Gagliardi, Gloria, Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo & Tamburini, Fabio
2012La prominenza in italiano: demarcazione più che culminazione. In Atti del VIII° Convegno nazionale dell’Associazione Italiana Scienze della Voce (AISV), Mauro Falcone & Andrea Paoloni (eds), 255–270. Roma: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
Garassino, Davide
2019French cleft sentences across genres. What is (not) prototypical? Handout for the Workshop When Data Challenges Theory: Non-Prototypical, Unexpected and Paradoxical Evidence in the Field of Information Structure, Freiburg im Breisgau 15–16 February 2019.Google Scholar
Garassino, Davide & Jacob, Daniel
This volume. When data challenges theory: The analysis of information structure and its paradoxes. In When Data Challenges Theory. Unexpected and Paradoxical Evidence in Information Structure, Davide Garassino & Daniel Jacob eds Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo
Givón, Talmy
2002Bio-linguistics. The Santa Barbara Lectures. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, Paul H.
1975Logic and conversation. In Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 3: Speech Acts, Peter Cole & Jerry Morgan (eds), 113–128. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grzech, Karolina Z.
2011Two aspects of common ground management: Information structure and epistemic meaning in Tena Kichwa. Talk presented at the V Conference on Language Documentation and Linguistic Theory, London.Google Scholar
2016Discourse Enclitics in Tena Kichwa. A Corpus-based Account of Information Structure and Epistemic Meaning. PhD dissertation, University of London.
Halliday, Michael A. K.
1985An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene R.
1982The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts.
Heritage, John
2012Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1): 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hintz, Daniel J. & Hintz, Diane M.
2017The evidential category of mutual knowledge in Quechua. Lingua 186–187: 88–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hjelmslev, Louis T.
1970 [1961] Prolegomena to a Theory of Language. Wisconsin: University Press [Translated edition by Francis J. Whitfield].Google Scholar
Horvath, Julia
1986Focus in the Theory of Grammar and the Syntax of Hungarian. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Jacob, Daniel
2015Anaphorische Spaltsätze im Französischen: Grammatik-Text-Rhetorik. In Informationsstrukturen in Kontrast: Strukturen, Kompositionen und Strategien, Séverine Adam, Daniel Jacob & Michael Schecker (eds), 101–122. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Jasinskaja, Katja
2016Information structure in Slavic. In The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds), 709–732. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10​.1093​/oxfordhb9780199642670​.013​.25Google Scholar
Ježek, Elisabetta
2005Lessico. Classi di parole, strutture, combinazioni. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Kamio, Akio
1997Territory of Information. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karssenberg, Lena & Lahousse, Karen
2018The information structure of French il y a clefts and c’est clefts: A corpus-based analysis. Linguistics 56(3): 513–548. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kempchinsky, Paula
2008How much structure does the left periphery need? Poster presented at Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages 38, April 2008.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred
2007Basic Notions of Information Structure. In Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 6, Caroline Féry, Gisbert Fanselow & Manfred Krifka (eds), 13–55. ISIS: Working Papers of the SFB 632.Google Scholar
2017Assertions, judgements, epistemic and evidentials. Talk presented at the workshop Speech Acts: Meanings, Uses, Syntactic and Prosodic Realizations, Leibniz-ZAS Berlin, May 2931 2017.Google Scholar
Lahousse, Karen
This volume. Is focus a root phenomenon? In When Data Challenges Theory. Unexpected and Paradoxical Evidence in Information Structure, Davide Garassino & Daniel Jacob eds Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo
Lahousse, Karen & Borremans, Marijke
2014The distribution of functional-pragmatic types of clefts in adverbial clauses. Linguistics 52(3): 793–836. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George
1984Performative subordinate clauses. Berkeley Linguistics Society 10: 472–480. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
1994Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert
1994L’actance. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Lee, Chungmin
2006Contrastive (Predicate) Topic, intonation, and scalar meanings. In Topic and Focus: Crosslinguistic Perspectives on Meaning and Intonation, Chungmin Lee, Matt Gordon & Daniel Büring (eds), 151–175. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Lehiste, Ilse
1970Suprasegmentals. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lenertová, Denisa & Junghanns, Uwe
2006Fronted focus exponents with maximal focus interpretation in Czech. In On Information Structure, Meaning and Form, Kerstin Schwabe & Susanne Winkler (eds), 347–363. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levy, Roger
2008Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 106(3): 1126–1177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo
1996A simple test for theme and rheme in the clause complex. Language Sciences 17(4): 357–378. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000Grammatica funzionale delle avverbiali italiane. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar
2009La struttura informativa. Forma e funzione negli enunciati linguistici. Carocci: Roma.Google Scholar
2014The topologic hypothesis of prominence as a cue to information structure in Italian. In Discourse Segmentation in Romance Languages [Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 250], Salvador Pons Bordería (ed), 219–241. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
This volume. Distinguishing psychological Given/New from linguistic Topic/Focus makes things clearer. In When Data Challenges Theory. Unexpected and Paradoxical Evidence in Information Structure, Davide Garassino & Daniel Jacob eds Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo
Masia, Viviana
2017aSociobiological Bases of Information Structure. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017bOn the Evidential Status of Presupposition and Assertion. International Journal of Linguistics 9(4): 134–153. DOI logoGoogle 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
Michelas, Amandine & German, James S.
2019Focus marking and prosodic boundary strength in French. Phonetica 77: 244–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mushin, Ilana
2001Evidentiality and Epistemological Stance. Narrative Retelling. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murray, Sarah E.
2010Evidentiality and the Structure of Speech Acts. PhD Dissertation, The State University of New Jersey.Google Scholar
2017The Semantics of Evidentials [Oxford Studies in Semantics and Pragmatics]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nakanishi, Kimiko
2008Prosody and scope interpretations of the topic marker ‘wa’ in Japanese. In Topic and Focus. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy (Vol. 82), Chungmin Lee, Matt Gordon & Daniel Büring (eds), 177–193. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan
2001Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 383–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ohta, Amy S.
1991Evidentiality and politeness in Japanese. Issues in Applied Linguistics 2(2): 211–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olarrea, Antxon
2012Word Order and Information Structure. In The Handbook of Hispanic Linguistics, José Ignacio Hualde, Antxon Olarrea & Erin O’Rourke (eds), 603–628. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Puglielli, Annarita & Frascarelli, Mara
2008L’analisi linguistica: dai dati alla teoria. Cesena-Roma: Caissa Italia.Google Scholar
Riester, Arndt & Baumann, Stefan
2013Focus triggers and focus types from a corpus perspectives. Dialogue and Discourse 4(2): 215–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rooth, Mats
1985Association with Focus. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts.
1992A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996Focus. In Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, Shalom Lappin & Chris Fox (eds), 1271–1298. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rosemeyer, Malte, Jacob, Daniel & Konieczny, Lars
This volume. How alternatives are created: Specialized background knowledge affects the interpretation of clefts in discourse. In When Data Challenges Theory. Unexpected and Paradoxical Evidence in Information Structure, Davide Garassino & Daniel Jacob eds Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo
Saeed, John
2004The focus structure of Somali. In RRG2004: The International Role and Reference Grammar Conference, Brian Nolan (ed), 258–279. Dublin: Institute of Technology Blanchardstown.Google Scholar
Sánchez, Liliana
2010The Morphology and Syntax of Topic and Focus: Minimalist Inquiries in the Quechua Periphery. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saussure de, Ferdinand
1916Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Schumacher, Petra B.
2012Context in neurolinguistics: Time-course data from electrophysiology. In What is a Context? Linguistic Approaches and Challenges, Rita Finkbeiner, Jörg Meibauer, & Petra B. Schumacher (eds), 33–53. Amsterdam: Jonh Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O.
1985Intonation, stress and meaning. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkley Linguistics Society, Mary Niepokuj (ed), 491–504. California: Berkeley Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Shireman, Joshua
2012Focus in Ecuadorian Quechua. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 33: 16–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simons, Mandy, Beaver, David, Roberts, Craige & Tonhauser, Judith
2017The Best Question: Explaining the projection behavior of factives. Discourse Processes 54(3): 187–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweller, John
2003Evolution of human cognitive architecture. In The Psychology of Learning and Motivations: Advances in Research and Theory 43, Brian H. Ross (ed), 215–266. Elsevier Science: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tamburini, Fabio
2007Prominence (Versione 1.0), University of Bologna.Google Scholar
Titov, Elena
2019Morphosyntactic encoding of information structure in Akan. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1): 27. DOI logo
Tosco, Mauro
2002A whole lotta’ focusin’ goin’ on: Information packaging in Somali texts. Studies in African Linguistics 31(1–2): 27–53.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert
2016Focus, intonation, and tonal height. In The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds), 463–482. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vallduví, Enric
1995Structural properties of information packaging in Catalan. In Discourse Configurational Languages, Katalin É. Kiss (ed), 122–152. Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Willett, Thomas
1988A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language 12: 51–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte & Onea, Edgar
2011Focus marking and focus interpretation. Lingua 121: 1651–1670. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Garassino, Davide & Daniel Jacob
2022. Introduction. When data challenges theory. In When Data Challenges Theory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 273],  pp. 2 ff. DOI logo
Lahousse, Karen
2022. Is focus a root phenomenon?. In When Data Challenges Theory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 273],  pp. 148 ff. DOI logo
Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo
2022. Distinguishing psychological Given/New from linguistic Topic/Focus makes things clearer. In When Data Challenges Theory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 273],  pp. 40 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 02 january 2023. 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.