By Carsten Breul, Edward Göbbel
This quantity offers unique comparative and contrastive study into a number of features of knowledge constitution (topic, concentration, contrastivity, givenness, anaphoricity) in addition to into kinds and constructions whose realisation is determined by information-structural elements (clefts, dislocations, reflexives, null matters, prosodic good points, interrogatives) in a couple of diversified languages (Catalan, English, French, Georgian, German, Hebrew, Hungarian). every one contribution emphasises transformations or commonalities among the languages below research with admire to the realisation of knowledge structural different types or with admire to the data structural implications of a given shape or constitution. the categorical comparative-contrastive viewpoint of the amount makes a considerable contribution in the direction of a greater knowing of language particular and common facets of data constitution. It increases major questions and offers options for the formal illustration and the practical houses of data structural different types.
Read Online or Download Comparative and Contrastive Studies of Information Structure PDF
Similar grammar books
This e-book offers an cutting edge idea of syntactic different types and the lexical sessions they outline. It revives the conventional concept that those are to be exceptional notionally (semantically). It permits there to be peripheral contributors of a lexical category that can no longer evidently comply with the final definition.
This learn offers the 1st description-oriented, theoretically-unaligned account of wh-clauses in smooth English. the writer employs a data-based method of learn elements of either generative and non-generative paintings as regards their relative strengths and weaknesses. Wh-clauses in English: elements of idea and outline is a distinct mixture of statistical findings and qualitative research.
The essays accrued during this quantity, such a lot formerly unpublished, tackle a few heavily interconnected matters raised by means of the comparative syntax of practical heads in the Principles-and-Parameters method. the overall idea of head circulation, the homes of derived buildings created by way of incorporation, and the parameterization concerned are the most theoretical foci.
Delivering a unified resolution in the frameworks of development Grammar and body Semantics, Hans Boas develops an account of resultative structures in English via grouping them in sessions: conventionalized and non-conventionalized. The usage-based version used right here proposes that every specific feel of a verb constitutes a conventionalized mini-construction, that's an important details for the licensing of arguments.
- Verb-Particle Explorations (Interface Explorations)
- Adjunct Adverbials in English (Studies in English Language)
- Functional Structure in DP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 1 (Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax)
- Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax (Studies in English Language)
- Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today)
Additional info for Comparative and Contrastive Studies of Information Structure
1â•… Definition and representation In the literature on information structure in German, it is widely assumed that there is a contour specialized for the expression of contrastive topicality, which is often called ‘hat contour’ (Hutkontur; cf. Jacobs 1982, 1996, 1997; Féry 1993; Büring 1994, 1997, 2003; Steube 2003, among many others). It consists of a scooped accent and a falling focus accent, each of which is contained in an intermediate phrase. The entire tune is called ‘hat contour’ because the pitch remains at a high level between the two accents.
The first type is found in sentences with ‘distributed foci’. Such sentences are answers to questions containing more than one wh-pronoun (‘matching questions’ in terms of Krifka 2001). I use the term ‘distributed foci’ rather than ‘multiple foci’ because such sentences can be analyzed as containing a single focus which is distributed over several constituents, rather than containing several foci. Consider (9): (9) A: Who read what? B: John read the bible and Mary read the newspaper. One way of looking at this question-answer pair is to regard it as containing two foci, each of them corresponding to one of the wh-pronouns (who, what).
Büring’s (2003) D(iscourse)-trees Each node in a d-tree is called a ‘move’, and “[a]ny sub-tree of a d-tree which is rooted in an interrogative move is a strategy” (Büring 2003: 518). 13 Who ate what? What did Fred eat? FCT ate the F. What did Mary eat? MCT ate the F. What did... e. What did Fred eat (the ‘question under discussion’, or QUD). In the example given in Diagram 2, this sentence answers only one of the questions in the ‘strategy’, which is rooted in the question Who ate what?.