Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Role and Reference Grammar
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Role and Reference Grammar
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Pedagogical Guide to The Cambridge Handbook of Role and Reference Grammar
- Introduction
- Part One Overview
- Part Two Topics in RRG: Simple Sentences
- 2 Lexical and Grammatical Categories in RRG
- 3 A Conceptually Oriented Approach to Semantic Composition in RRG
- 4 Semantic Macroroles
- 5 Grammatical Relations
- 6 Argument Structure Alternations
- 7 Case Assignment
- 8 Morphology in RRG
- 9 Adverbs, Mimetics and Ideophones
- 10 Adposition Assignment and Adpositional Phrase Types in RRG
- 11 The RRG Approach to Information Structure
- 12 Information Structure and Argument Linking
- Part Three Topics in RRG: Complex Sentences
- Part Four Applications of RRG
- Part Five Grammatical Sketches
- Index
- References
11 - The RRG Approach to Information Structure
from Part Two - Topics in RRG: Simple Sentences
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 June 2023
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Role and Reference Grammar
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Role and Reference Grammar
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Pedagogical Guide to The Cambridge Handbook of Role and Reference Grammar
- Introduction
- Part One Overview
- Part Two Topics in RRG: Simple Sentences
- 2 Lexical and Grammatical Categories in RRG
- 3 A Conceptually Oriented Approach to Semantic Composition in RRG
- 4 Semantic Macroroles
- 5 Grammatical Relations
- 6 Argument Structure Alternations
- 7 Case Assignment
- 8 Morphology in RRG
- 9 Adverbs, Mimetics and Ideophones
- 10 Adposition Assignment and Adpositional Phrase Types in RRG
- 11 The RRG Approach to Information Structure
- 12 Information Structure and Argument Linking
- Part Three Topics in RRG: Complex Sentences
- Part Four Applications of RRG
- Part Five Grammatical Sketches
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter introduces the theoretical constructs adopted by Role and Reference Grammar (RRG) in the treatment of information structure and addresses the question of the place of information structure in the architecture of grammar. It is claimed that RRG offers an approach to information structure which is flexible enough to capture the cross-linguistic variation in the role played by discourse in the semantics–syntax and syntax–semantics linking, while also being sufficiently constrained to make important generalizations on the expression of pragmatic states and pragmatic relations, and their interface with prosody, morphology and sentence structure.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Role and Reference Grammar , pp. 456 - 487Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Belloro, Valeria. 2004. A Role and Reference Grammar Account of Third Person Clitic Clusters in Spanish. MA thesis, University at Buffalo (SUNY).Google Scholar
Belloro, Valeria. 2015. To the Right of the Verb: An Investigation of Clitic Doubling and Right Dislocation in Three Spanish Dialects. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Bentley, Delia. 2008. The interplay of focus structure and syntax. Evidence from two sister languages. In Van Valin, Jr. (ed.), 263–284.Google Scholar
Bentley, Delia. 2010. Focus fronting in the layered structure of the clause. In Nakamura (ed.), 4–28. https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/rrg/ProceedingsofRRG2009_02.pdf.Google Scholar
Bentley, Delia. 2018. Grammaticalization of subject agreement on evidence from Italo-Romance. Linguistics 56: 1245–1301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentley, Delia, Ciconte, Francesco Maria, Cruschina, Silvio and Ramsammy, Michael. 2016. Micro-variation in information structure: Existential constructions in Italo-Romance. In Jocelyne Fernandez-Vest, M. M. and Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. (eds.), Information Structure and Spoken Language in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective, 95–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Li, Charles (ed.), Subject and Topic, 27–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Tomlin, Russell (ed.), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse, 21–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1979. Russian. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Languages and Their Status, 91–150. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1984. Russian. In Chisolm, W. S. Jr. (ed.), Interrogativity, 7–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cruschina, Silvio. 2006. Informational focus in Sicilian and the left periphery. In Frascarelli, Mara (ed.), Phases of Interpretation (Studies in Generative Grammar 91), 363–385. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruschina, Silvio. 2012. Discourse-Related Features and Functional Projections. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cruschina, Silvio. 2015. Focus Structure. In Bentley, Delia, Ciconte, Francesco Maria and Cruschina, Silvio (eds.), Existentials and Locatives in Romance Dialects of Italy, 43–98. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Cia, Simone. 2019. The Syntactic-Pragmatic Interface in North-Eastern Italian Dialects: Consequences for the Geometry of the Left Periphery. PhD dissertation, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Demuth, Katherine. 1989. Maturation and the acquisition of the Sesotho passive. Language 65: 56–80.Google Scholar
Demuth, Katherine. 1990. Subject, topic and the Sesotho passive. Journal of Child Language 17: 67–84.Google Scholar
Diedrichsen, Elke. 2008. Where is the precore slot? Mapping the layered structure of the clause and German sentence typology. In Van Valin, Jr. (ed.), 203–224.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1997. The Dynamics of Focus Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 2007. Information Structure: The Syntax-Discourse Interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1982. Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (eds.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara. 2017. Dislocations and framings. In Dufter, Andreas and Stark, Elisabeth (eds.), Manual of Romance Morphosyntax and Syntax (Manuals of Romance Linguistics 17), 472–501. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara and Hinterhölzl, Roland. 2007. Types of topics in German and Italian. In Winkler, Susanne and Schwabe, Kerstin (eds.), On Information Structure, Meaning and Form, 87–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K. 1988. Universals of topic-comment structure. In Hammond, Michael, Moravcsik, Edith and Wirth, Jessica (eds.), Studies in Syntactic Typology, 209–239. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., Hedberg, Nancy and Zacharski, Ron. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69(2): 274–307.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2007. Basic notions of information structure. In Féry, Caroline, Fanselow, Gisbert and Krifka, Manfred (eds.), The Notions of Information Structure, 13–55. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumo. 1972. Functional sentence perspective: A case study from Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry 3: 269–320.Google Scholar
Lahousse, Karen. 2011. Quand passent les cicognes: Le sujet nominal postverbal en français moderne. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.Google Scholar
Lahousse, Karen and Lamiroy, Béatrice. 2012. Word order in French, Spanish and Italian: A grammaticalization account. Folia Linguistica 46: 1–29.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1986. Topic, Focus and the Grammar of Spoken French. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 2000. When subjects behave like objects: An analysis of the merging of S and O in sentence focus constructions across languages. Studies in Language 24: 611–682.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 1990. Grammatical Relations in Chinese: Synchronic and Diachronic Considerations. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 1993. Arguments against ‘subject’ and ‘direct object’ as viable concepts in Chinese. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 63(4): 759–813.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 1995. Pragmatic relations and word order in Chinese. In Downing, Pamela and Noonan, Michael (eds.), Word Order in Discourse, 297–329. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Leone, Alfonso. 1995. Profilo di sintassi siciliana. Palermo: Centro di Studi Filologici e Linguistici Siciliani.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth and Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax–Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N. and Thompson, Sandra. 1976. Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In Li, Charles (ed.), Subject and Topic, 459–489. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Nakamura, Wataru (ed.). 2010. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Role and Reference Grammar (RRG 2009). https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/rrg/ProceedingsofRRG2009_02.pdf.Google Scholar
O’Connor, Rob. 2008. A prosodic projection for Role and Reference Grammar. In Van Valin, Jr. (ed.), 227–244.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. 1980. The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation. PhD Dissertation, MIT (published in 1988 by Indiana University Linguistics Club).Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Cole, Peter (ed.), Radical Pragmatics, 223–255. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1992. The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information-status. In Mann, William C. and Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text, 295–324. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27: 53–94.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, Liliane (ed.), Elements of Grammar, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2006. On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. In Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen and Corver, Norbert (eds.), Wh-Movement. Moving On, 97–133. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Ürgen. 1987. The thetic-categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 25: 511–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shimojo, Mitsuaki. 1995. Focus Structure and Morphosyntax in Japanese: Wa and ga, and Word Order Flexibility. PhD dissertation, University at Buffalo (SUNY).Google Scholar
Shimojo, Mitsuaki. 2008. How missing is the missing verb? The verb-less numeral quantifier construction in Japanese. In Van Valin, Jr. (ed.), 285–304.Google Scholar
Shimojo, Mitsuaki. 2009. Focus structure and beyond: Discourse-pragmatics in Role and Reference Grammar. In Guerrero, Lilián, Cerda, Sergio Ibáñez and Belloro, Valeria A. (eds.), Studies in Role and Reference Grammar, 111–141. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
Shimojo, Mitsuaki. 2010. The left periphery and focus structure in Japanese. In Wataru Nakamura (ed.), Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Role and Reference Grammar (RRG 2009), 315–235. www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~rrgpage/rrg.html.Google Scholar
Shimojo, Mitsuaki. 2011. The left periphery and focus structure in Japanese. In Nakamura, Wataru (ed.), New Perspectives in Role and Reference Grammar, 266–293. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Sornicola, Rosanna. 1983. Relazioni d’ordine e segmentazione della frase in italiano: Per una teoria della sintassi affettiva. In Benincà, Paola, Cortelazzo, Michele, Prosdocimi, Aldo, Vanelli, Laura and Zamboni, Alberto (eds.), Scritti linguistici in onore di Giovan Battista Pellegrini, 561–577. Pisa: Pacini.Google Scholar
Stempel, Wolf-Dieter. 1981. L’amour elle appelle ça – L’amour tu connais pas. In Rohrer, Christian (ed.), Logos Semantikos. Studia linguistica in honorem Eugenio Coseriu, Vol. 4: Grammatik, 351–367. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Tortora, Christina. 1997. The Syntax and Semantics of the Weak Locative. PhD dissertation, University of Delaware.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1999. A typology of the interaction of focus structure and syntax. In Raxilina, Ekatarina and Testelec, Yakov G. (eds.), Typology and Linguistic Theory: From Description to Explanation, 511–524. Moscow: Languages of Russian Culture.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2005. Exploring the Syntax–Semantics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. (ed.). 2008. Investigations of the Syntax–Semantics–Pragmatics Interface. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2015. An overview of information structure in three Amazonian Languages. In M. M. Jocelyne Fernandez-Vest and Robert D. Van Valin, Jr. (eds.), Information Structuring of Spoken Language from a Cross-linguistic Perspective, 77–92. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. and LaPolla, Randy. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar