Cover not available
Part of
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. 119–156

Chapter 5
Factors behind variation in marking information structure

Contributions from Central Pomo

| University of California, Santa Barbara
Prosody and morphosyntax are exploited in most languages for expressing information structure, but the contributions of each vary. Some of the factors underlying the both cross-linguistic similarities and the variation are differences between the two, in particular (i) their patterns of development through time and (ii) their categoriality. While prosody does not normally lose its pragmatic force with frequency of use, syntactic and morphological constructions do. While pitch, intensity, and rhythm, are matters of degree, syntactic and morphological constructions, such as particular orders or the presence of markers, are categorical. Prosodic patterns appear to be tied to cognition more directly, such as the packaging of information into intonation units and correlations between prosodic prominence and pragmatic strength. These are generally more widespread. Syntactic and morphological patterns, the result of development over time, show more cross-linguistic variation. Interactions between the two are illustrated with examples from spontaneous speech in Central Pomo, a language indigenous to California. The patterns include the packaging of information into intonation units, the expression of different kinds of topics (given and continuing, continuing but reconfirmed, shifted, contrastive), and different kinds of focus (broad, narrow of various types, contrastive, corrective, exhaustive, and additive).
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Central Pomo
  • 3.Givenness and basic prosodic packaging
  • 4.Topic constructions
    • 4.1No mention: Continuing given topics
    • 4.2Unstressed pronouns: Given referents
    • 4.3Antitopics: Continuing topics
    • 4.4Topicalization: Shift to accessible topic
    • 4.5Separate clause or sentence: Brand new topic
    • 4.6Topic spotlight clitic =ya
    • 4.7Prosodically prominent, initial constituents: Contrastive topics
    • 4.8Contrastive enclitic =na
    • 4.9Passive: Elimination of non-topical agents
  • 5.Focus constructions
    • 5.1Broad (all new) focus
    • 5.2In-situ narrow focus
    • 5.3Initial-position focus
    • 5.4Initial position contrastive focus
    • 5.5Clefts
    • 5.6Exhaustive focus
    • 5.7Additive focus
  • 6.Strategies for marking information structure
    • 6.1Activation state
    • 6.2Topic
    • 6.3Focus
    • 6.4Prosody, syntax, and morphology
  • References
Published online: 2 August 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.199.05mit
References (23)
References
Asiatani, Rusudan & Skopeteas, Stavros. 2013. The information structure of Georgian. In Krifka & Musan (eds), 127–158.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Subject and Topic, Charles Li (ed.), 25–50. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1979. The flow of thought and the flow of language. In Discourse and Syntax, Talmy Givón, (ed.), 159–181. New York NY: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1980. The deployment of consciousness in the production of a narrative. In The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production, Wallace Chafe (ed.), 9–50. Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
. 1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Coherence and Grounding in Discourse [Typological Studies in Language 11], Russell Tomlin (ed.), 21–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas & Levinson, Steven. 2009. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32: 429–492. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Féry, Caroline. 2013. Focus as prosodic alignment. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31: 683–734. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fiedler, Ines & Schwarz, Anne. 2010. Introduction. In The Expression of Information Structure: A Documentation of its Diversity across Africa [Typological Studies in Language 91], Ines Fiedler & Anne Schwarz (eds), vii–xii. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hedberg, Nancy. 2000. The referential status of clefts. Language 76(4): 891–920. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang. 2013. The information structure of French. In Krifka & Musan (eds), 95–126.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred & Musan, Renate. 2012. Introduction. In Krifka & Musan (eds), 1–45.Google Scholar
(eds). 2012. The Expression of Information Structure [The Expression of Cognitive Categories 5]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics 39: 463–516. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2008. Information structure and grammaticalisation. In Theoretical and Empirical Issues in Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 77], Elena Seoane & Maria José Lopez-Couso (eds), 207–230. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1912. L’évolution des formes grammaticales. Scientia: rivista internazionale di sintesi scientifica 12: 384–400. Reprinted in Meillet, Antoine. 1921. Linguistique historique et linguistique générale, 130–148. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Radical Pragmatics, Peter Cole (ed.), 223–256. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with Focus. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skopeteas, Stavros. 2012. The empirical investigation of information structure. In Krifka & Musan (eds), 217–248.Google Scholar
Skopeteas, Stavros & Fanselow, Gisbert. 2010. Focus in Georgian and the expression of contrast. Lingua 120: 1370–1391. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Wal, Jenneke. 2015. Information structure, (inter)subjectivity and objectification. Journal of Linguistics 51(2): 425–464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Modicom, Pierre-Yves & Olivier Duplâtre
2020. Introduction. In Information-Structural Perspectives on Discourse Particles [Studies in Language Companion Series, 213], ► pp. 2 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 june 2024. 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.