Information structure

Jeanette K. Gundel & Thorstein Fretheim
Table of contents

Grammars of natural languages offer speakers a variety of options for expressing the same basic informational content. To take a simple example from English, the sentences in (1a)–(1j) can all be used to convey the information that a particular dog chased a particular cat.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price.

References

Ariel, M.
1988 Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics 24: 67–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bak, S.-Y.
1977 Topicalization in Korean. University of Hawaii Working Papers in Linguistics 9(2): 63–88.Google Scholar
Birner, B.J. & G. Ward
1998 Information status and noncanonical word order in English. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D.
1961 Contrastive accent and contrastive stress. Language 37: 87–96.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bosch, P. & R. Van Der Sandt
(eds.) 1999 Focus in natural language processing. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Büring, D.
1999 Topic. In Bosch, P. & R. Van Der Sandt (eds.): 142–165.Google Scholar
Chafe, W.L.
1976 Givenness, definiteness, contrastiveness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In C.N. Li ed.: 25–56. ).Google Scholar
1994 Discourse, Consciousness, and Time. Chicago University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Chao, Y.R.
1968 A grammar of spoken Chinese. University of California Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N.
1971 Deep structure, surface structure and semantic interpretation. In D. Steinberg & L. Jakobovits (eds.) Semantics an Interdisciplinary Reader in Linguistics, Philosophy and Psychology: 183–216. Cambridge University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Daneš, F.
1974 Papers on functional sentence perspective. Mouton.  BoP DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Derbyshire, D.C.
1979 Hixkaryana Syntax. Ph.D. Diss. University of London.Google Scholar
Dooley, R.A.
1982 Options in the pragmatic structuring of Guarani sentences. Language 58(2): 307–31.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, N.
1997 The Dynamics of Focus Structure. Cambridge University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Firbas, J.
1966 On defining the theme in functional sentence analysis. In F. Daneš et al. (eds.) Travaux linguistiques de Prague Vol. 1: 267–280. University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J.D. & I. Sag
1982 Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and philosophy 5: 355–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fretheim, T.
1987 Pragmatics and intonation. In J. Verschueren & M. Bertuccelli-Papi (eds.)395–420. The Pragmatic Perspective: John Benjamins. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
1992a Grammatically underdetermined theme-rheme articulation. ROLIG no. 49, Roskilde University Center.Google Scholar
1992b Themehood, rhemehood and Norwegian focus structure. Folia Linguistica XXVI(1–2: 1–2.Google Scholar
in press) The interaction of right-dislocated pronominals and intonational phrasing in Norwegian. In W. Van Dommelen & T. Fretheim (eds.) Nordic Prosody: Proceedings of the VIIIth Conference Peter Lang
Von Der Gabelenz, G.
1868 Ideen zur einer vergleichenden Syntax: Wort-und Satzstellung. Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft 6: 376–384.Google Scholar
Gundel, J.K.
1974 The Role of Topic and Comment in Linguistic Theory. Ph.D. Diss., University of Texas at Austin. (Published by Garland ,1989.).Google Scholar
1980 Zero NP-anaphora in Russian: a case of topic-prominence. In Proceedings from the 16th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Parasession on Anaphora: 139–146.Google Scholar
1985 Shared knowledge and topicality. Journal of Pragmatics 9: 83–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1988 Universals of topic-comment structure. In M. Hammond, E. Moravczik & J. Wirth (eds.) Studies in syntactic typology: 209–239. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999a On different kinds of focus. In P. Bosch & R. Van Der Sandt (eds.). 293–305 . Google Scholar
1999b Topic focus and the grammar pragmatics interface. In J. Alexander, N. Han & M. Minnick (eds.) Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics. 6(1): 185–200.Google Scholar
2002 Information structure and the use of cleft sentences in English and Norwegian. In B. Behrens, C. Fabricius-Hansen, H. Hasselgaard & S. Johansson (eds.) Information structure in a cross-linguistic perspective: 113–128. Rodopi.Google Scholar
Gundel, J.K., N. Hedberg & R. Zacharski
1993 Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69: 274–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K.
1967 Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Part II. Journal of Linguistics 3: 199–244. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Hedberg, N.
1990 Discourse pragmatics and cleft sentences in English. University of Minnesota dissertation.Google Scholar
2000 The referential status of clefts. Language 76: 891–920. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heim, I.R.
1982 The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Ph.D. Diss. University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Hetland, J.
2003 Contrast the fall-rise accent, and information focus. In J. Hetland & V. Molnar (eds.). Structures of focus and grammatical relations. Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R.
1972 Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. MIT Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Johannson, M.
2001 Clefts in contrast. A contrastive study of English and Swedish texts and translations. Linguistics 39: 547–582.Google Scholar
Kuno, S.
1972 Functional sentence perspective. Linguistic Inquiry 3(3): 269–320.  BoPGoogle Scholar
1976 Subject, theme and the speaker’s empathy. In C.N. Li (ed.): 417–455. Academic Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Kuroda, S.Y.
1965 Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. MIT Diss.Google Scholar
1972 The categorical and the thetic judgement: evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of Language 9: 153–185.Google Scholar
Ladd, D.R.
1978 The structure of intonational meaning: evidence from English. Indiana University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K.
1994 Information structure and sentence form. topic focus, and the mental representation of discourse referents. Cambridge University Press. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Lee, C.
1999 A locus of the interface. Evidence from Korean and English. In K. Turner (ed.). The semantics/pragmatics interface from different points of view: 317–342. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Li, C.N.
1976 Subject and Topic. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Li, C.N. & S.A. Thompson
1976 Subject and topic: a new typology of language. In C.N. Li (ed.): 457–490.Google Scholar
Mathesius, V.
1928 On linguistic characterology with illustrations from Modern English. Actes du Premier Congrès International de Linguistes à La Haye: 56–63. (Reprinted in J. Vachek (ed.). (1964) A Prague School reader in linguistics: 59–67. Indiana University Press).  BoPGoogle Scholar
Paul, H.
1880 Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J.
1980 The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation. Ph.D. Diss., MIT.Google Scholar
Prince, E.F.
1985 Fancy syntax and shared knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics 9(1): 65–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998 On the limits of syntax, with reference to left-dislocation and topicalization. In P. Cullicover & L. Mcnally (eds.) The limits of syntax: 261–302. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T.
1981 Pragmatics and linguistics. An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27: 53–94.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Schmerling, S.F.
1976 Aspects of English sentence stress. University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E.O.
1984 Phonology and syntax: the relation between sound and structure. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sgall, P., E. Haji & E. Benečová
1973 Topic focus, and generative semantics. Scriptor Verlag.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Sgall, P., E. Haji & J. Panevová
1986 The meaning of the sentence in its semantic and pragmatic aspects. Reidel.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. & D. Wilson
1986/95 Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Blackwell.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Strawson, P.F.
1964 Identifying reference and truth values. Theoria 3: 96–118.Google Scholar
Steedman, M.
2000 Information structure and the syntax-phonology interface. Linguistic Inquiry 31(4): 649–689. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vallduví, E.
1992 The informational component. Garland.Google Scholar
Vallduví, E. & M. Vilkuna
1998 On rheme and kontrast. In P. Cullicover & L. Mcnally (eds.). The limits of syntax: 79–108. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Zacharski, R.
1993 A discourse pragmatics model of English Accent. Ph.D. Diss., University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Ziv, Y. & B. Grosz
1994 Right dislocation and attentional state. Proceedings of the 9th annual conference and of the workshop on discourse : 184–199. The Israeli Association for Theoretical Linguistics.