Article published in:
Usage-based and Typological Approaches to Linguistic Units
Edited by Tsuyoshi Ono, Ritva Laury and Ryoko Suzuki
[Studies in Language 43:2] 2019
► pp. 469497
References

References

Collins, Suzanne
2008The Hunger Games. Scholastic.Google Scholar
2009Catching Fire. Scholastic.Google Scholar
2010Mockingjay. Scholastic.Google Scholar
2012aCatching Fire (Filipino edition). Quezon City: Precious Pages Corporation.Google Scholar
2012bThe Hunger Games (Filipino edition). Quezon City: Precious Pages Corporation.Google Scholar
2013Mockingjay. Quezon City: Precious Pages Corporation.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat
1984The pragmatics of it-clefts and wh-clefts. Lingua 64(4). 251–289. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dery, Jeruen E.
2007Pragmatic focus and word order variation in Tagalog. Language and Linguistics 8(1). 373–402.Google Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara & Francesca Ramaglia
2009(Pseudo)cleft constructions at the interfaces. Manuscript. lingbuzz/000841 (2018–0102). https://​ling​.auf​.net​/lingbuzz​/000841
Güldemann, Tom
2016Maximal backgrounding= focus without (necessary) focus encoding. Studies in Language 40(3). 551–590. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K.
1988Universals of topic-comment structure. In M. Hammond, E. Moravcsik & J. Wirth (eds.), Studies in linguistic typology, 209–239. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kaufman, Daniel
2005Aspects of pragmatic focus in Tagalog. In I. Wayan Arka & Malcolm Ross (eds.), The many faces of Austronesian voice systems: some new empirical studies, 175–196. Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, ANU.Google Scholar
Kroeger, Paul
1991Phrase structure and grammatical relations in Tagalog: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
1986Topic, focus and the grammar of spoken French: University of California, Berkeley dissertation.Google Scholar
[ p. 495 ]
1987Sentence focus, information structure, and the thetic-categorical distinction. In Proceedings of the 13th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, vol. 13, 366–382. Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
1994Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000When subjects behave like objects: An analysis of the merging of S and O in sentence-focus constructions across languages. Studies in Language 24(3). 611–682. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Latrouite, Anja
2019Specification Predication, Unexpectedness and Cleft-Constructions in Tagalog. Manuscript currently under review.Google Scholar
Latrouite, Anja & Arndt Riester
2018The role of information structure for morphosyntactic choices in Tagalog. Riesberg, Sonja & Shiohara, Asako. Information Structure in Austronesian Languages. Berlin: Language Science Press. 1–47. (in press).Google Scholar
Latrouite, Anja & Robert D. Van Valin, Jr.
to appear. A Role and Reference Grammar account of aspects of the information structure-syntax interface in Tagalog. In Koen van Hooste, Anja Latrouite & Robert D. Van Valin, Jr. eds. Proceedings of the 2015 Role and Reference Grammar conference in preparation
Lee, Eun Hee & Mitsuaki Shimojo
2016Mismatch of topic between Japanese and Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 25(1). 81–112. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lovestrand, Joseph
2018The background marker ná in Barayin. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 39(1). 1–39. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, Mercer
1967A boy, a dog and a frog. New York: Dial Press.Google Scholar
1969Frog, where are you? New York: Dial Press.Google Scholar
1971A boy, a dog, a frog and a friend. New York: Dial Press.Google Scholar
Nagaya, Naonori
2006aPreferred referential expressions in Tagalog. Tokyo University Linguistics Papers 25. 83–106.Google Scholar
2006bTopicality and reference-tracking in Tagalog. In 9th philippine linguistics congress. Quezon City: University of the philippines diliman, Citeseer.Google Scholar
2007Information structure and constituent order in Tagalog. Language and Linguistics 8(1). 343–372.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul & Fe T. Otanes
1972Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Shimojo, Mitsuaki & Hye-Won Choi
2000On asymmetry in topic marking-the case of Japanese wa and Korean nun. In Akira Okrent & John P. Boyle (eds.), Chicago linguistic society, vol. 36 1, 455–467.Google Scholar
Simons, Gary F. & Charles D. Fennig
2018Ethnologue: Languages of the world, twenty-first edition, online version (last visited: 2018-03-22). www​.ethnologue​.com
Skopeteas, Stavros, Ines Fiedler, Samantha Hellmuth, Anne Schwarz, Ruben Stoel, Gisbert Fanselow, Caroline Féry & Manfred Krifka
2006Questionnaire on information structure (QUIS): Reference manual, vol. 4. Universitätsverlag Potsdam.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr.
2005Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. & Randy J. LaPolla
1997Syntax: Structure, meaning, and function. Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 496 ]
Ward, Gregory & Betty J. Birner
2011Discourse effects of word order variation. In Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language and meaning, vol. 33 2, 1934–1963. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar