1932

Abstract

Information structure has been one of the central topics of recent linguistic research. This review discusses a wide range of current approaches with particular reference to African languages, as these have been playing a crucial role in advancing our knowledge about the diversity of and recurring patterns in both meaning and form of information structural notions. We focus on cross-linguistic functional frameworks, the investigation of prosody, formal syntactic theories, and relevant effects of semantic interpretation. Information structure is a thriving research domain that promises to yield important advances in our general understanding of human language.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-125134
2015-01-14
2024-05-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/1/1/annurev-linguist-030514-125134.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-125134&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abels K, Muriungi P. 2008. The focus marker in Kiitharaka: syntax and semantics. Lingua 118:687–731 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aboh EO. 2004. The Morphosyntax of Complement-Head Sequences: Clause Structure and Word Order Patterns in Kwa Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  3. Aboh EO, Dyakonova M. 2009. Predicate doubling and parallel chains. Lingua 119:1035–65 [Google Scholar]
  4. Aboh EO, Hartmann K, Zimmermann M. 2007. Focus Strategies in African Languages: The Interaction of Focus and Grammar in Niger-Congo and Afro-Asiatic Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
  5. Bao M. 2012. Prosody of focus among information structures in Pulaar. Afr. Aegyptol. Online 2012:9. http://www.afrikanistik-online.de/archiv/2012//3528
  6. Bearth T. 1999. The contribution of African linguistics towards a general theory of focus: update and critical review. J. Afr. Lang. Linguist. 20:121–56 [Google Scholar]
  7. Beaver D, Clark B. 2008. Sense and Sensitivity Oxford, UK: Blackwell
  8. Belletti A. 2004. Aspects of the low IP area. The Structure of CP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures Vol. 2 Rizzi L. 16–51 New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  9. Bergvall VL. 1987. Focus in Kikuyu and universal grammar. PhD thesis, Harvard Univ., Cambridge, MA. 222 pp.
  10. Biloa E. 2013. The Syntax of Tuki: A Cartographic Approach Amsterdam: Benjamins
  11. Blackings M, Fabb N. 2003. A Grammar of Ma’di Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter
  12. Boadi LA. 1974. Focus-marking in Akan. Linguist. Int. Rev. 140:5–57 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bossong G. 1998. Le marquage différentiel de l’objet dans les langues d’Europe. Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe Feuillet J. 193–258 Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  14. Brody M. 1990. Some remarks on the focus field in Hungarian. UCL Work. Pap. Linguist. 2:201–25 [Google Scholar]
  15. Buell LC. 2006. The Zulu conjoint/disjoint verb alternation: focus or constituency?. Papers in Bantu Grammar and Description Downing LJ, Marten L, Zerbian S. 9–30 Berlin: Zent. Allg. Sprachwiss., Typol. Universalienforsch. [Google Scholar]
  16. Büring D. 2003. On D-trees, beans, and B-accents. Linguist. Philos. 26:511–45 [Google Scholar]
  17. Büring D. 2010. Towards a typology of focus realization. See Zimmermann & Féry 2010, pp. 177–205 [Google Scholar]
  18. Byrne F, Winford D. 1993. Focus and Grammatical Relations in Creole Languages Amsterdam: Benjamins
  19. Cable S. 2012. The optionality of movement and EPP in Dholuo. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 30:651–97 [Google Scholar]
  20. Caron B. 2000. Topicalisation et focalisation dans les langues africaines Leuven/Paris: Peeters
  21. Chafe WL. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. Subject and Topic Li CN. 25–55 New York/San Francisco/London: Academic [Google Scholar]
  22. Chafe WL. 1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. Coherence and Grounding in Discourse Tomlin RS. 21–51 Amsterdam: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  23. Cheng LLS, Downing LJ. 2009. Where’s the topic in Zulu?. Linguist. Rev. 26:207–38 [Google Scholar]
  24. Cheng LLS, Downing LJ. 2012. Against FocusP: arguments from Zulu. Information Structure: Contrasts and Positions Kucerova I, Neeleman A. 247–66 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  25. Cinque G. 1977. The movement nature of left dislocation. Linguist. Inq. 8:397–412 [Google Scholar]
  26. Collins C, Essizewa KE. 2007. The syntax of verb focus in Kabiye. Selected Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference on African Linguistics Payne DL, Peña J. 192–203 Somerville, MA: Cascadilla [Google Scholar]
  27. Comrie B. 1979. Definite and animate direct objects: a natural class. Linguist. Sil. 3:13–21 [Google Scholar]
  28. Creissels D. 1996. Conjunctive and disjunctive verb forms in Setswana. S. Afr. J. Afr. Lang. 16:109–15 [Google Scholar]
  29. Creissels D. 2012. Conjoint and disjoint verb forms in Tswana and other Bantu languages Presented at LLACAN-HUB Workshop Inf. Struct., Paris
  30. Dalrymple M, Nikolaeva I. 2011. Objects and Information Structure Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  31. De Cat C, Demuth K. 2008. The Bantu–Romance Connection: A Comparative Investigation of Verbal Agreement, DPs, and Information Structure Amsterdam: Benjamins
  32. De Hoop H, De Swart P. 2008. Differential Subject Marking Dordrecht, Neth.: Springer
  33. Dik SC. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar, Part 1: The Structure of the Clause Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  34. Downing LJ. 2011. The prosody of ‘dislocation’ in selected Bantu languages. Lingua 121:772–86 [Google Scholar]
  35. Downing LJ. 2012. On the (non-)congruence of focus and prominence in Tumbuka. Selected Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Conference on African Linguistics Marlo MR, Adams NB, Green CR, Morrison M, Purvis TM. 122–33 Somerville, MA: Cascadilla [Google Scholar]
  36. Downing LJ, Hyman LM. 2015. Information structure in Bantu. Handbook of Information Structure Féry C, Ishihara S. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press In press [Google Scholar]
  37. Downing LJ, Pompino-Marschall B. 2013. The focus prosody of Chichewa and the stress-focus constraint: a response to Samek-Lodovici (2005). Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 31:647–81 [Google Scholar]
  38. Eaton HC. 2002. The grammar of focus in Sandawe PhD thesis, Univ. Reading, UK
  39. Ebert C, Hinterwimmer S. 2010. The interpretation of topical indefinites as direct and indirect aboutness topics. See Zimmermann & Féry 2010, pp. 89–114 [Google Scholar]
  40. Ermisch S. 2006. Focus and Topic in African Languages Cologne, Ger.: Rüdiger Köppe
  41. Erteschik-Shir N. 2007. Information Structure Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  42. Fanselow G, Lenertová D. 2011. Left peripheral focus: mismatches between syntax and information structure. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 29:169–209 [Google Scholar]
  43. Féry C. 2013. Focus as prosodic alignment. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 31:683–734 [Google Scholar]
  44. Fiedler I. 2009. Contrastive topic marking in Gbe. Current Issues in Unity and Diversity of Languages: Collection of Papers Selected from the CIL 18295–308 Seoul: Linguist. Soc. Korea [Google Scholar]
  45. Fiedler I, Jannedy S. 2013. Prosody of focus marking in Ewe. J. Afr. Lang. Linguist. 34:1–46 [Google Scholar]
  46. Fiedler I, Schwarz A. 2006. Papers on Information Structure in African Languages Berlin: Zent. Allg. Sprachwiss., Typol. Universalienforsch.
  47. Fiedler I, Schwarz A. 2010. The Expression of Information Structure: A Documentation of Its Diversity Across Africa Amsterdam: Benjamins
  48. Fiedler I, Hartmann K, Reineke B, Schwarz A, Zimmermann M. 2010. Subject focus in West African languages. See Zimmermann & Féry 2010, pp. 234–57
  49. Frascarelli M, Puglielli A. 2007. Focus in the Force-Fin system: information structure in the Cushitic languages. See Aboh et al. 2007, pp. 161–84
  50. Gast V, Van der Auwera J. 2011. Scalar additive operators in the languages of Europe. Language 87:2–54 [Google Scholar]
  51. Givón T. 1975. Focus and the scope of assertion: some Bantu evidence. Stud. Afr. Linguist. 6:185–205 [Google Scholar]
  52. Givón T. 1983. Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study Amsterdam: Benjamins
  53. Good J. 2010. Topic and focus fields in Naki. See Fiedler & Schwarz 2010, pp. 35–67
  54. Green CR. 2009. Prosody and intonation in non-Bantu Niger-Congo languages: an annotated bibliography. Electron. J. Afr. Bibliogr. 2009:11 http://ir.uiowa.edu/ejab/vol11/iss1/1/ [Google Scholar]
  55. Green M. 1997. Focus and copular constructions in Hausa PhD thesis, Sch. Orient. Afr. Stud., London, UK. 253 pp.
  56. Green M, Jaggar PR. 2003. Ex-situ and in-situ focus in Hausa: syntax, semantics and discourse. Research in Afroasiatic Grammar 2 Lecarme J. 187–213 Amsterdam: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  57. Gregory ML, Michaelis LA. 2001. Topicalization and left-dislocation: a functional opposition revisited. J. Pragmat. 33:1665–706 [Google Scholar]
  58. Grubic M, Zimmermann M. 2011. Conventional and free association with focus in Ngamo (West Chadic). Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 15 Reich I, Horch E, Pauly D. 291–305 Saarbrücken, Ger.: Saarland Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  59. Güldemann T. 1996. Verbalmorphologie und Nebenprädikationen im Bantu: Eine Studie zur funktional motivierten Genese eines konjugationalen Subsystems Bochum, Ger.: Univ. Dr. Brockmeyer Press
  60. Güldemann T. 1999. The genesis of verbal negation in Bantu and its dependency on functional features of clause types. Bantu Historical Linguistics: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives Hombert JM, Hyman LM. 545–87 Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf. [Google Scholar]
  61. Güldemann T. 2003. Present progressive vis-à-vis predication focus in Bantu: a verbal category between semantics and pragmatics. Stud. Lang. 27:323–60 [Google Scholar]
  62. Güldemann T. 2007. Preverbal objects and information structure in Benue-Congo. See Aboh et al. 2007, pp. 83–111
  63. Güldemann T. 2010. The relation between focus and theticity in the Tuu family. See Fiedler & Schwarz 2010, pp. 69–93
  64. Güldemann T. 2012. Maximal backgrounding renders focus function without focus encoding. Presented at LLACAN-HUB Workshop Inf. Struct., Paris
  65. Güldemann T, Fiedler I, Morimoto Y, Prokhorov K. 2010. Preposed verb doubling and predicate-centered focus. Presented at Int. Conf. SFB 632, “Information Structure,” Univ. Potsdam/Humboldt Univ. Berlin
  66. Gundel JK. 1974. The role of topic and comment in linguistic theory. PhD thesis, Univ. Tex., Austin. 211 pp.
  67. Hadermann P. 1996. Grammaticalisation de la structure infinitif + verbe conjugué dans quelques langues bantoues. Stud. Afr. Linguist. 25:155–69 [Google Scholar]
  68. Handschuh C. 2014. A Typology of Marked-S Languages Berlin: Lang. Sci.
  69. Harbour D. 2008. Klivaj predika, or predicate clefts in Haitian. Lingua 118:853–71 [Google Scholar]
  70. Hartmann K, Zimmermann M. 2007a. In place—out of place? Focus in Hausa. On Information Structure, Meaning and Form: Generalizing Across Languages Schwabe K, Winkler S. 365–403 Amsterdam: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  71. Hartmann K, Zimmermann M. 2007b. Exhaustivity marking in Hausa: a re-evaluation of the particle nee/cee. See Aboh et al. 2007, pp. 241–63 [Google Scholar]
  72. Hartmann K, Zimmermann M. 2008. Not only ‘only’, but ‘too’, too. Alternative-sensitive particles in Bura. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 12 Grønn A. 196–211 Oslo: Univ. Oslo Press [Google Scholar]
  73. Hartmann K, Zimmermann M. 2012. Focus marking in Bura: Semantic uniformity matches syntactic heterogeneity. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 30:1061–108 [Google Scholar]
  74. Hartmann K, Veenstra T. 2013. The Structure of Clefts Amsterdam: Benjamins
  75. Heath J. 1999. A Grammar of Koyraboro (Koroboro) Senni Cologne, Ger.: Rüdiger Köppe
  76. Heine B, Reh M. 1983. Diachronic observations on completive focus marking in some African languages. Sprache Gesch. Afr. 5:7–44 [Google Scholar]
  77. Hellmuth S. 2005. No de-accenting in (or of) phrases. Evidence from Arabic for cross-linguistic and cross-dialectal prosodic variation. Prosodies Frota S, Vigario M, Freitas MJ. 99–122 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  78. Hellmuth S. 2007. The relationship between prosodic structure and pitch accent distribution: evidence from Egyptian Arabic. Linguist. Rev. 24:291–316 [Google Scholar]
  79. Hellmuth S. 2009. The (absence of) prosodic reflexes of given/new information status in Egyptian Arabic. Information Structure in Spoken Arabic Owens J, Elgibali A. 165–88 London: Routledge [Google Scholar]
  80. Higgins FR. 1979. The Pseudo-Cleft Construction in English New York/London: Garland
  81. Hinterwimmer S. 2011. Information structure and truth-conditional semantics. Semantics von Heusinger K, Maienborn C, Portner P. 1875–908 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  82. Hiraiwa K. 2005. Predicate clefts in Bùlì: phase and category. Ling. Anal. 32:544–83 [Google Scholar]
  83. Horn LR. 1981. Exhaustiveness and the semantics of clefts. Proceedings of the 11th Annual Meeting of the North-Eastern Linguistic Society (NELS11) Burke V, Pustejovsky J. 124–42 Amherst: Univ. Mass. Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc. [Google Scholar]
  84. Horváth J. 1986. Focus in the Theory of Grammar and the Syntax of Hungarian Dordrecht, Neth.: Foris
  85. Hyman LM. 1999. The interaction between focus and tone in Bantu. The Grammar of Focus Rebuschi G, Tuller L. 151–77 Amsterdam: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  86. Hyman LM, Polinsky M. 2010. Focus in Aghem. See Zimmermann & Féry 2010, pp. 206–33
  87. Hyman LM, Watters JR. 1984. Auxiliary focus. Stud. Afr. Linguist. 15:233–73 [Google Scholar]
  88. Iatridou S, Varlokosta S. 1998. Pseudoclefts crosslinguistically. Nat. Lang. Semant. 6:3–28 [Google Scholar]
  89. Jacob P. 2010. On the obligatoriness of focus marking: evidence from Tar B’arma. See Fiedler & Schwarz 2010, pp. 117–44
  90. Jaggar PR. 2001. Hausa Amsterdam: Benjamins
  91. Jokweni MW. 1995. Aspects of IsiXhosa phrasal phonology PhD thesis, Univ. Ill., Urbana-Champaign
  92. Kandybowicz J. 2008. The Grammar of Repetition: Nupe Grammar at the SyntaxPhonology Interface Amsterdam: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  93. Kanerva JM. 1990. Focus and Phrasing in Chicheŵa Phonology New York: Garland
  94. Kenstowicz M. 1985. The phonology and syntax of wh-expressions in Tangale. Stud. Linguist. Sci. 15:79–91 [Google Scholar]
  95. Kihm A. 1999. Focus in Wolof: a study of what morphology may do to syntax. The Grammar of Focus Rebuschi G, Tuller L. 245–74 Amsterdam: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  96. Kiss . 1998. Identification focus and information focus. Language 74:245–73 [Google Scholar]
  97. König C. 2006. Marked nominative in Africa. Stud. Lang. 30:655–732 [Google Scholar]
  98. König E. 1991. The Meaning of Focus Particles London: Routledge
  99. Koopman H. 1984. The Syntax of Verbs: From Verb Movement Rules in the Kru Languages to Universal Grammar Dordrecht, Neth.: Foris
  100. Kratzer A. 1991. The representation of focus. Handbook of Semantics von Stechow A, Wunderlich D. 825–34 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  101. Krifka M. 2008. Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguist. Hung. 55:243–76 [Google Scholar]
  102. Kügler F, Genzel S. 2012. On the prosodic expression of pragmatic prominence: the case of pitch register lowering in Akan. Lang. Speech 55:331–59 [Google Scholar]
  103. Lambrecht K. 1987. Sentence focus, information structure, and the thetic-categorical distinction. Berkeley Linguist. Soc. 13:366–82 [Google Scholar]
  104. Lambrecht K. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  105. Lambrecht K. 2000. When subjects behave like objects: an analysis of the merging of S and O in sentence-focus constructions across languages. Stud. Lang. 24:611–82 [Google Scholar]
  106. Lambrecht K. 2001. A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics 39:463–516 [Google Scholar]
  107. Leben WR, Ahoua F. 2006. Phonological reflexes of emphasis in Kwa languages of Côte d’Ivoire. Stud. Afr. Linguist. 11:Suppl.145–58 [Google Scholar]
  108. Leffel T, Símík R, Wierzba M. 2014. Pronominal F-markers in Basaá. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the North-Eastern Linguistic Society (NELS43) Huang H-L, Poole E, Rysling E. 265–76 Amherst: Univ. Mass. Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc. [Google Scholar]
  109. Li CN. 1976. Subject and Topic New York/San Francisco/London: Academic
  110. Manfredi V. 1993. Verb focus in the typology of Kwa/Kru and Haitian. See Byrne & Winford 1993, pp. 3–51
  111. Manfredi V. 2007. Nuclear stress in Eastern Benue-Kwa (Niger-Congo). See Aboh et al. 2007, pp. 15–54
  112. Matić D, Wedgwood D. 2012. The meanings of focus: the significance of an interpretation-based category in cross-linguistic analysis. J. Linguist. 49:127–63 [Google Scholar]
  113. Molnár V. 2002. Contrast—from a contrastive perspective. Information Structure in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective Hasselgard H, Johansson S, Behrens B, Fabricius-Hansen C. 147–61 Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi [Google Scholar]
  114. Morimoto Y. 2000. Discourse configurationality in Bantu morphosyntax PhD thesis, Stanford Univ. 676 pp.
  115. Neeleman A, Titov E, Van de Koot H, Vermeulen R. 2009. A syntactic typology of topic, focus and contrast. Alternatives to Cartography van Craenenbroeck J. 15–52 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  116. Newman P. 2000. The Hausa Language New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  117. Nikolaeva I. 2001. Secondary topic as a relation in information structure. Linguistics 39:1–49 [Google Scholar]
  118. Pawley A, Syder FH. 2000. The one-clause-at-a-time hypothesis. Perspectives on Fluency Riggenbach H. 163–99 Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press [Google Scholar]
  119. Rapold CJ. 2007. From demonstratives to verb agreement in Benchnon: a diachronic perspective. Omotic and Cushitic Studies: Papers from the Fourth Cushitic Omotic Conference Amha A, Mous M, Savà G. 69–88 Cologne, Ger.: Rüdiger Köppe [Google Scholar]
  120. Reineke B. 2007. Identificational operation as a focus strategy in Byali. See Aboh et al. 2007, pp. 223–40
  121. Reinhart T. 1982. Pragmatics and Linguistics: An Analysis of Sentence Topics Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Linguist. Club
  122. Repp S. 2010. Defining ‘contrast’ as an information-structural notion in grammar. Lingua 120:1333–45 [Google Scholar]
  123. Rialland A, Robert S. 2001. The intonational system of Wolof. Linguistics 39:893–939 [Google Scholar]
  124. Rizzi L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. Elements of Grammar Haegeman L. 281–337 Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer [Google Scholar]
  125. Rizzi L. 2004. The Structure of CP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures Vol. 2 New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  126. Rooth M. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Nat. Lang. Semant. 1:75–116 [Google Scholar]
  127. Saah KK. 1988. Wh-questions in Akan. J. West Afr. Lang. 18:17–28 [Google Scholar]
  128. Saah KK. 1994. Studies in Akan syntax PhD thesis, Univ. Ottawa, Can. 321 pp.
  129. Sabel J, Zeller J. 2006. Wh-question formation in Nguni. African Languages and Linguistics in Broad Perspective Mugane J, Hutchison J, Worman D. 271–83 Somerville, MA: Cascadilla [Google Scholar]
  130. Saeed JI. 1984. The Syntax of Focus and Topic in Somali Hamburg, Ger.: Helmut Buske
  131. Samek-Lodovici V. 2005. Prosody–syntax interaction in the expression of focus. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 23:687–755 [Google Scholar]
  132. Sasse HJ. 1987. The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 25:511–80 [Google Scholar]
  133. Sasse HJ. 2006. Theticity. Pragmatic Organization of Discourse in the Languages of Europe Bernini G, Schwartz ML. 255–308 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  134. Schachter P. 1973. Focus and relativization. Language 49:19–46 [Google Scholar]
  135. Schuh R. 1982. Questioned and focused subjects and objects in Bade/Ngizim. The Chad Languages in the Hamitosemitic-Negritic Border Area Jungraithmayr H. 160–74 Berlin: Dietrich Reimer [Google Scholar]
  136. Schwarz A. 2009. Tonal focus reflections in Buli and some Gur relatives. Lingua 119:950–72 [Google Scholar]
  137. Schwarz F. 2007. Ex-situ focus in Kikuyu. See Aboh et al. 2007, pp. 139–59
  138. Sharman JC. 1956. The tabulation of tenses in a Bantu language (Bemba: Northern Rhodesia). Africa 26:29–46 [Google Scholar]
  139. Silverstein M. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages Dixon RWM. 112–71 Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities [Google Scholar]
  140. Strawson PF. 1964. Identifying reference and truth-values. Theoria 30:96–118 [Google Scholar]
  141. Szendrői K. 2003. A stress-based approach to the syntax of Hungarian focus. Linguist. Rev. 20:37–78 [Google Scholar]
  142. Torrence H. 2013. The morphosyntax of Wolof clefts: a-movement properties. See Hartmann & Veenstra 2013, pp. 187–224
  143. Truckenbrodt H. 1995. Phonological phrases: their relation to syntax, focus, and prominence PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA. 260 pp.
  144. Tuller L. 1992. The syntax of postverbal focus constructions in Chadic. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 10:303–34 [Google Scholar]
  145. Umbach C. 2004. On the notion of contrast in information structure and discourse structure. J. Semant. 21:155–75 [Google Scholar]
  146. Vallduví E. 1990. The informational component PhD thesis, Univ. Penn., Philadelphia. 232 pp.
  147. Vallduví E, Vilkuna M. 1998. On rheme and kontrast. The Limits of Syntax Culicover P, McNally L. 79–106 New York: Academic [Google Scholar]
  148. Van der Wal J. 2009. Word order and information structure in Makhuwa-Enahara PhD thesis, Rijksuniv. Leiden, Neth. 309 pp.
  149. Van der Wal J. 2011. Focus excluding alternatives: conjoint/disjoint marking in Makhuwa. Lingua 121:1734–50 [Google Scholar]
  150. Velleman DB, Beaver D, Destruel E, Bumford D, Onea E, Coppock E. 2012. It-clefts are IT (inquiry terminating) constructions. Proceedings of the 22nd Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (SALT 22) Chereches A, Ashton N, Lutz D. 441–60 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  151. Watters JR. 1979. Focus in Aghem. Aghem Grammatical Structure Hyman LM. 137–97 Los Angeles: Univ. South. Calif. Press [Google Scholar]
  152. Wedekind K. 1990. Generating Narratives: Interrelations of Knowledge, Text Variants, and Cushitic Focus Strategies Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
  153. Xu Y. 1999. Effects of tone and focus on the formation and alignment of f0 contours. J. Phonet. 27:55–105 [Google Scholar]
  154. Yip M. 2002. Tone Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  155. Zerbian S. 2006. Expression of Information Structure in the Bantu Language Northern Sotho Berlin: Zent. Allg. Sprachwiss., Typol. Universalienforsch.
  156. Zerbian S. 2007a. Investigating the prosodic expression of focus in Northern Sotho. See Aboh et al. 2007, pp. 55–79
  157. Zerbian S. 2007b. Phonological phrasing in Northern Sotho (Bantu). Linguist. Rev. 24:233–62 [Google Scholar]
  158. Zerbian S, Genzel S, Kügler F. 2010. Experimental work on prosodically-marked information structure in selected African languages (Afroasiatic and Niger-Congo). Speech Prosody 2010 100976:1–4 [Google Scholar]
  159. Zimmermann M. 2006a. Focus in Western Chadic: a unified OT-account. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the North-Eastern Linguistic Society (NELS36) Davis C, Deal AR, Zabbal Y. 77–86 Amherst: Univ. Mass. Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc. [Google Scholar]
  160. Zimmermann M. 2006b. Adverbial quantification and focus in Hausa. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 10 Ebert C, Endriss C. 453–67 Berlin: Zent. Allg. Sprachwiss. [Google Scholar]
  161. Zimmermann M, Féry C. 2010. Information Structure: Theoretical, Typological and Experimental Perspectives Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  162. Zimmermann M. 2011. The grammatical expression of focus in West Chadic: variation and uniformity in and across languages. Linguistics 49:1163–213 [Google Scholar]
  163. Zimmermann M, Onéa E. 2011. Focus marking and focus interpretation. Lingua 121:1651–70 [Google Scholar]
  164. Zubizaretta ML. 1998. Prosody, Focus and Word Order Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-125134
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error