Cover not available
Review published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 26:2 (2002) ► pp.476–486
Book review

André Meinunger. Syntactic Aspects of Topic and Comment. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2000.

Reviewed by
| University of Vienna
Published online: 13 September 2002
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.26.2.11mol
References (29)
References
Abraham, Werner. 1995. “Morphological Case: No Need for Functional Projections in German.” In: Language and Cognition 51, Roel Jonkers, Edith Kaan and Anko Wiegel (eds.), 1–12. Groningen.Google Scholar
. 1997. “The base Structure of the German Clause under Discourse Functional Weight: Contentful Functional Categories vs. Derivative Ones.” In: German: Syntactic Problems  – Problematic Syntax, Werner Abraham and Elly van Gelderen (eds.), 11–43. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Abraham, Werner & Molnárfi László. 2002. “The German Clause under discourse functional weight: Focus and Antifocus.” In: Issues in Comparative German(ic) Typology ed. by W. Abraham & J. -W. Zwart. 1–43. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butt, Miriam, T. Holloway & G. Ramchand (eds.) 1993. Theoretical Perspectives on Word Order in South Asian Languages. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. “A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory.” In: The View from Building 20. Essays in Honor of Sylvian Bromberger, Kenneth Hale and Samuel J. Keyser (eds.), 1–52. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Massachusetts.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1998. Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1993. “A Null Theory of Phrase and Compound Stress.” Linguistic Inquiry 24(2), 239–298.Google Scholar
Czepluch, Hartmut. 1988. “Kasusmorphologie und Kasusrelationen: Überlegungen zur Kasustheorie am Beispieldes Deutschen.“ Linguistische Berichte 1181, 275–310.Google Scholar
Daneš, František (ed.) 1974. Papers on functional sentence perspective. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Firbas, Jan. 1964. On defining Theme in functionalsentence analysis. Travaux Linguistiques de Prague 11, 267–280.Google Scholar
. 1992. Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communication. Cambridge: University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument Structure. Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 1993. Deutsche Syntax- generativ. Vorstudien zur Theorie einer projektiven Grammatik. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
. 1998. Form Follows Function Fails  – as a Direct Explanation for Properties of Grammars. In: The Role of Pragmatics in Contemporary Philosophy. Paul Weingartner & Gerhard Schurz & Georg Dorn (eds.), 92–108. Vienna: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert & Inger Rosengren. 1998. Scrambling. Sprache und Pragmatik 491, 1–104.Google Scholar
Hajičová, Eva & Barbara Partee and Petr Sgall (eds.) 1998. Topic-focus articulation, tripartite structures and semantic content. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoop, Helen de. 1997. “Optional Scrambling and Predication.” Texas Linguistic Forum 381, 135–147.Google Scholar
. 2000. “Optional Scrambling and Interpretation.” In: Interface Strategies, Hans Bennis, Martin Everaert & Eric Reuland (eds.), 153–168. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy.Google Scholar
Horváth, Júlia. 1995. “Structural Focus, Structural Case and the Notion of Feature-Assignment.” In: Discourse Configurational Languages, Katalin Éva Kiss (ed.), 28–64. New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mahajan, Anoop. 1991. “Clitic Doubling, Object Agreement and Specificity.” Proceedings of NELS 211.Google Scholar
Mathesius, Villem. 1939. “On the so-called functional sentence perspective.” Slovo a Slovesnost 51, 171–174.Google Scholar
Molnárfi, László 1999. „Zur Diskurskomponente in der Sprechsprache: vir als Rhemamarkierer im Afrikaans.” In: Werner Abraham (ed.) Characteristic Issues in Spoken Vernaculars, Specialissue of Folia Linguistica 33(1), 75–100.Google Scholar
2002. “Focus and Antifocus in modern Afrikaans and West Germanic.” To appear in Linguistics 40/6. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 1996. “Optional Movement and the Interaction of Economy Constraints.” In: Chris Wilder, Hans-Martin, Gärtner & Manfred Bierwisch (eds.) The Role of Economy Principles in Linguistic Theory, 115–145. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, Ad & Tanya Reinhart. 1998. Scrambling and the PF Interface.” In: Miriam Butt & Wilhelm Gueder (eds.) The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors, 309–353. Stanford: CSLI-publications.Google Scholar
Rosengren, Inger. 1994. „Scrambling- was ist das?“ In: B. Haftka (ed.) Was determiniert Wortstellungsvariation?, 175–195. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter. 1993. Dutch Syntax. A Minimalist Approach. Ph.D. thesis, University of Groningen.Google Scholar