Hostname: page-component-5f7774ffb-6nplr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-02-20T03:10:10.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Information structure and sentence form

Review products

Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. By Lambrecht Knud. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. 388 pp.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Maria Polinsky
Maria Polinsky*
Affiliation:
University of California at San Diego
*
Dept. of Linguistics, UCSD, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0108 [polinsky@ling.ucsd.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Information

Type
Review Article
Information
Language , Volume 75 , Issue 3 , September 1999 , pp. 567 - 582
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 Linguistic Society of America

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Austin, Peter, and Bresnan, Joan. 1996. Non-configurationality in Australian Aboriginal languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14. 215–68.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 1971. Questions. Linguistic Inquiry 2. 153–66.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1996. The polysynthesis parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barss, Andrew, Hale, Kenneth, Perkins, Ellavina; and Speas, Margaret. 1991. Logical form and barriers in Navajo. Logical structure and linguistic structure: Cross-linguistic perspectives, ed. by James Huang, C-T. and May, Robert, 25–47. Dordrecht: Kluwer,.Google Scholar
Beckman, Mary. 1996. The parsing of prosody. Language and Cognitive Processes 11. 7–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birner, Betty J., and Ward, Gregory. 1998. Information status and non-canonical word order in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1965. Forms of English: Accent, morpheme, order. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1998. Lexical-functional grammar. Stanford: Stanford University, @@sc@@ms@@/sc@@.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. Subject and topic, ed. by Li, Charles N., 25–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Choe, Hyon Sook. 1995. Focus and topic movement in Korean and licensing. In É. Kiss 1995, 269–334.Google Scholar
Choi, Hye-won. 1996. Optimizing structure in context: Scrambling and information structure. Stanford: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1972. Some empirical issues in the theory of transformational grammar. Goals of linguistic theory, ed. by Peters, Stanley, 63–130. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter. 1996. On distinguishing A'-movements. Linguistic Inquiry 27. 445–63.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter, and McNally, Louise (eds.) 1998. The limits of syntax. Syntax and semantics, vol. 29. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dahlstrom, Amy. 1993. The syntax of discourse functions in Fox. Berkeley Linguistics Society 19. 11–21.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Drubig, Hans-Bernhard. 1994. Island constraints and the syntactic nature of focus and association with focus. SFB 340. Arbeitsberichte 51.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin (ed.) 1995. Discourse-configurational languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74. 245–73.Google Scholar
En$cS, Mürvet. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 1–25.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1986. WH-questions and focus. Linguistics and Philosophy 9. 117–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1998. The dynamics of focus structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fiengo, Robert, James Huang, C.-T., Lasnik, Howard; and Reinhart, Tanya. 1988. The syntax of wH-in-situ. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 7. 81–98.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1988. The mechanisms of 'construction grammar'. Berkeley Linguistics Society 14. 35–55.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles, Kay, Paul; and O'Connor, Mary Catherine. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64. 501–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firbas, Jan. 1992. Functional sentence perspective in written and spoken communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrod, Simon. 1994. Resolving pronouns and other anaphoric devices: The case for diversity in discourse processing. Perspectives on sentence processing, ed. by Clifton, Charles, Frazier, Lyn, and Rayner, Keith, 339–85. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Garrod, Simon, Freudenthal, Daniel; and Boyle, Elizabeth. 1994. The role of different types of anaphor in the online resolution of sentences in a discourse. Journal of Memory and Language 33. 39–68.Google Scholar
Garrod, Simon, and Sanford, Anthony. 1994. Resolving sentences in a discourse context: How discourse representation affects language understanding. Handbook of psycholinguistics, ed. by Gemsbacher, Morton Ann, 675–98. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette. 1985. 'Shared knowledge' and topicality. Journal of Pragmatics 9. 83–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette. 1998. Topic, focus, and the grammar-pragmatics interface. Minneapolis and Trondheim: University of Minnesota and NTNU, @@sc@@ms@@/sc@@.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette, Hedberg, Nancy; and Zacharski, Ron. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69. 274–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, Kenneth. 1983. Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1. 5–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hetzron, Robert. 1965. The particle baa in northern Somali. Journal of African Languages 5. 42–69.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jo, Mi-Jeung. 1995. The theory of syntactic focalization based on a subcategorization. In E. Kiss 1995, 335–73.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul, and Fillmore, Charles 1998. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What's X doing Y? construction. Language 75. 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kazenin, Konstantin. 1998. Focus in Tsaxur. Moscow: Moscow University, @@sc@@ms@@/sc@@.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1992. A framework for focus-sensitive quantification. Proceedings of the conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory 2. 215–36. Columbus: Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1987. Functional syntax: Anaphora, discourse, and empathy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1972. The categorical and the thetic judgment: Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of Language 9. 153–85.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1988. Whether we agree or not: A comparative syntax of English and Japanese. Papers from the second international workshop on Japanese syntax, ed. by Poser, William, 103–43. Stanford: Center for Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1990. The categorical and thetic judgment reconsidered. Mind, meaning, and metaphysics, ed. by Milligan, K., 77–88. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladusaw, William. 1994. Thetic and categorical, stage and individual, weak and strong. Proceedings of the Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory 4. 220–29. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, Dept. of Modern Languages and Linguistics.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud, and Michaelis, Laura A. 1998. Sentence accent in information questions: Default and projection. Linguistics and Philosophy 21. 477–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, Howard, and Saito, Mamoru. 1992. Move alpha. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon, and Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 1993. Improper movement and unambiguous binding. Linguistic Inquiry 24. 461–507.Google Scholar
Muysken, Peter. 1995. Focus in Quechua. In É. Kiss 1995, 375–93.Google Scholar
Ortiz de Urbina, Jon. 1995. Residual verb second and verb first in Basque. In É. Kiss 1995, 99–121.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara. 1991. Topic, focus and quantification. Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 10. 159–87.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1981. Towards a taxonomy of given-new information. Radical pragmatics, ed. by Cole, Peter, 223–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1998. On the limits of syntax, with reference to left-dislocation and topicalization. In Culicover and McNally, 281–302.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1982. Pragmatics and linguistics. An analysis of sentence topics. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1991. Residual verb second and the wH-criterion. Technical Reports in Formal and Computational Linguistics 2. University of Geneva.Google Scholar
Rochemont, Michael. 1986. Focus in generative grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1. 75–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1995. Indefinites, adverbs of quantification, and focus semantics. The generic book, ed. by Carlson, Gregory N. and Pelletier, Francis Jeffry, 265–99. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1987. The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 25. 511–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, Jane. 1991. Warlpiri morpho-syntax: A lexicalist approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Wilson, Deirdre. 1986. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 1973. Presuppositions. Journal of Philosophical Logic 2. 447–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 1974. Pragmatic presuppositions. Semantics and philosophy, ed. by Munitz, Milton and Unger, Peter, 197–213. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. 1964. Identifying reference and truth-values. Theoria 30. 96–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svolacchia, Marco, Mereu, Lunella; and Puglielli, Annarita. 1995. Aspects of discourse configurationality in Somali. In É. Kiss 1995, 65–98.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna, and Zwarts, Frans. 1997. Weak islands and an algebraic semantics for scope taking. Ways of scope taking, ed. by Szabolcsi, Anna, 217–62. Dordrecht: Kluwer,CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsimpli, Ianthi Maria. 1995. Focusing in Modern Greek. In É. Kiss 1995, 176–206.Google Scholar
Tuller, Laurice. 1992. The syntax of postverbal focus constructions in Chadic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10. 303–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallduví, Enric. 1992. The informational component. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Vallduví, Enric. 1995. Structural properties of information packaging in Catalan. In É. Kiss 1995, 122–52.Google Scholar
Vallduví, Enric, and Vilkuna, Maria. 1998. On rheme and kontrast. In Culicover and McNally, 79–108.Google Scholar
Vilkuna, Maria. 1995. Discourse configurationality in Finnish. In E. Kiss 1995, 244–68.Google Scholar