Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T07:57:35.829Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 28 - Grammatical Reflexes of Information Structure in Germanic Languages

from Part IV - Semantics and Pragmatics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2020

By
Caroline Féry
Edited by
Michael T. Putnam  and
B. Richard Page
Michael T. Putnam
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
B. Richard Page
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
Get access

Summary

This chapter reviews the syntactic and prosodic correlates of information structure in Germanic languages. The chapter starts with an introduction to the information structural notions: focus, topic, and givenness related to the way information is stored in human memory and organized in communication. The effect of information structure on prosody in these languages can be felt in several ways: pitch accent addition because of focus, pitch accent deletion because of givenness, topicalization because of topic. In syntax, the effects are also numerous: scrambling, a series of leftward movements: topicalization, passivization, dative construction, object-shift, and a series of rightward movements: extraposition, right-dislocation, heavy NP-shift, afterthought. Pronominalization and ellipsis are the results of givenness. At the end of the chapter, focus-sensitive particles (or “association with focus”) like exclusive only, additive also and scalar even, are shortly mentioned. Germanic languages show a wealth of effects, but they also differ among each other in subtle ways.

Keywords

culminativityfocusfocus-sensitive particlegiveninformation structurelexical accentpitch accentprosodic structurescramblingtopic
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics , pp. 661 - 686
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bauman, S. and Riester, A. 2013. “Coreference, lexical givenness and prosody in German,” Lingua 136: 16–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J. and Nikitina, T. 2008. “Gradience and the dative alternation.” In Uyechi, L. and Wee, L-H. (eds.), Reality Exploration and Discovery: Pattern Interaction in Language and Life. Stanford: CSLI Publications: 1–23.Google Scholar
Bruce, G. 1977. “Swedish word accent in sentence perspective,” Travaux de l’Institut de Linguistique de Lund 12. Gleerup: Lund.Google Scholar
Büring, D. 2003. “On D-Trees, Beans, and B-Accents,” Linguistics & Philosophy 26. 5: 511–545.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. 1976. “Givenness, Contrastiveness, Definiteness, Subjects, Topics, and Point of View.” In Li, C. (ed.), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press: 25–55.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. and Halle, M. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. and Haviland, S. E.. 1977. “Comprehension and the given-new contract.” In Freedle, R. O. (ed.), Discourse Processes: Advances in Research and Theory, Vol. 1: Discourse Production and Comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex: 1–40.Google Scholar
Constant, N. 2014. Contrastive Topic: Meanings and Realizations. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G. 2001. “Features, θ-roles, and free constituent order,” Linguistic Inquiry 32: 405–437.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G. 2016. “Syntactic and prosodic reflexes of information structure in Germanic.” In Féry, C. and Ishihara, S. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure. Oxford University Press: 621–641.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G. and Lenertová, D. 2010. “Left peripheral focus: Mismatches between syntax and information structure,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29:169–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Féry, C. 2011. “German sentence accents and embedded prosodic phrases,” Lingua 121: 1906–1922.Google Scholar
Féry, C. 2013. “Focus as prosodic alignment,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31.3: 683–734.Google Scholar
Frey, W. 1993. Syntaktische Bedingungen für die semantische Interpretation. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Haider, H. 1981. “Empty categories: On some Differences between German and English,” Wiener Linguistische Gazette 25:13–36.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1967 /1968. “Transitivity and theme in English (part II),” Journal of Linguistics 3: 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamblin, C. L. 1973. “Questions in Montague Grammar,” Foundations of Language 10: 41–53.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A. 1986. Word Order and Syntactic Features in the Scandinavian Languages and English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
Hyman, L. 2006. “Word-prosodic typology,” Phonology 23: 225–257.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs, J. 2001. “The dimensions of topic-comment,” Linguistics 39: 641–681.Google Scholar
Katz, J. & Selkirk, E. O. 2011. “Contrastive focus versus discourse-new: Evidence from phonetic prominence,” Language 87: 771–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, M. 2008. “Basic notions of information structure,” Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55: 243–276.Google Scholar
Kügler, F. and Féry, C. 2016. “Postfocal downstep in German,” Language and Speech. DOI:10.1177/0023830916647204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, J. 2001. The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, J. 2004. “Fragments and ellipsis,” Linguistics and Philosophy 27.6: 661–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myrberg, S. and Riad, T. 2016. “On the expression of focus in the metrical grid and in the prosodic hierarchy.” In Féry, C. and Ishihara, S. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure. Oxford University Press: 441–462.Google Scholar
Neeleman, A. and van de Koot, H. 2016. “Word order and information structure.” In Féry, C. and Ishihara, S. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure. Oxford University Press: 383–401.Google Scholar
Prince, E. 1981. “Toward a taxonomy of given-new information.” In Cole, P. (ed.), Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press: 223–256.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. 1981. “Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics,” Philosophica 27: 63–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riad, T. 2014. The Phonology of Swedish. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, C. 1996. “Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics.” In Yoon, J. H. and Kathol, A. (eds.), OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 49: Papers in Semantics. Columbus: Ohio State University Press: 91–136.Google Scholar
Rochemont, M. 1986. Focus in Generative Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rochemont, M. 2016. “Givenness.” In Féry, C. and Ishihara, S. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure. Oxford University Press: 41–63.Google Scholar
Rochemont, M. and Culicover, P. 1990. English Focus Constructions and the Theory of Grammar. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 52. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rooth, M. 1985. Associations with Focus. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Rooth, M. 1992. “A Theory of Focus Interpretation,” Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116.Google Scholar
Rooth, M. 2016. “Alternative semantics.” In Féry, C. and Ishihara, S. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure. Oxford University Press: 19–40.Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, R. 1999. “Givenness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent,” Natural Language Semantics 7: 141–177.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. 2000. “The interaction of constraints on prosodic phrasing.” In Horne, M. (ed.), Prosody: Theory and Experiment. Dordrecht: Kluwer: 231–261.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. 1974. “Pragmatic presuppositions.” In Munitz, M. and Unger, P. (eds), Semantics and philosophy. New York University Press: 197–213.Google Scholar
Steedman, M. 2000. “Information structure and the syntax-phonology interface,” Linguistic Inquiry 31:649–689.Google Scholar
Svenonius, P. 2002. “Subject positions and the placement of adverbials.” In Svenonius, P. (ed.), Subjects, Expletives, and the EPP. New York: Oxford University Press: 199–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomioka, S. 2010. “Contrastive topics operate on speech acts.” In Zimmermann, M. and Féry, C. (eds.), Information Structure. Oxford University Press: 115–138.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, H. 1995. Phonological Phrases: The Relation to Syntax, Focus, and Prominence. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Vallduví, E. and Engdahl, E. 1996. “The linguistic realization of information packaging,” Linguistics 34: 459–519.Google Scholar
Vicente, L. 2006. “Negative short replies in Spanish.” In Bettelou, L. and van de Weijer, J. (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 23. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 199–210.Google Scholar
Wang, B. and Féry, C. 2018. Prosody of Dual-focus in German: Interaction between Focus and Phrasing. Language and Speech 61.2: 303–333.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winkler, S. 2016. “Ellipsis and information structure.” In Féry, C. & Ishihara, S. (eds), Oxford Handbook of Information Structure. Oxford University Press: 359–382.Google Scholar
Zubizaretta, M-L. 1998. Prosody, Focus, and Word Order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×