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
12 - Information Structure and Argument Linking
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
The RRG approach to information structure (IS) was laid out by Bentley (Chapter 11), and the linking between syntax and semantics was explicated by Van Valin (Chapter 1), Watters (Chapter 6), Guerrero (Chapter 14) and Paris (Chapter 15). These discussions did not emphasize the role of IS in linking, and it is to this topic that we turn in this chapter. We begin by presenting the representation of IS in the layered structure of the clause, and then we show how context can be represented using a version of Discourse Representation Theory and the different focus types derived from these representations. The next section illustrates the importance of IS for the analysis of grammatical phenomena, and this is followed by an analysis of conjunction reduction, which presented problems for an RRG analysis in purely syntactic terms. Finally, the interaction of IS and the linking algorithm will be explored, showing that IS interacts with it in important ways.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Role and Reference Grammar , pp. 488 - 522Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Balogh, Kata. 2021. Additive particle uses in Hungarian: A Role and Reference Grammar account. Studies in Language 45: 428–469.Google Scholar
Bentley, Delia. 2008. The interplay of focus structure and syntax: Evidence from two sister languages. In Van Valin (ed.), 263–284.Google Scholar
Bentley, Delia. 2018. Grammaticalization of subject agreement on evidence from Italo–Romance. Linguistics 56: 1245–1301.Google Scholar
Berio, Leda, Latrouite, Anja, Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. and Vosgerau, Gottfried. 2017. Immediate and general common ground. In Brézillon, Patrick, Turner, Roy and Penco, Carlo (eds.), Modeling and Using Context, 1–14. Heidelberg: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Bickerton, Derek. 1975. Some assertions about presuppositions and pronominalization. Communication and Linguistics Studies 11, Parasession on Functionalism, 580–609.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1979. Pronouns in discourse. In Givón, T. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. XII: Discourse and Syntax, 289–310. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan and Mchombo, Sam A.. 1987. Topic, pronoun and agreement in Chicheŵa. Language 63: 741–782.Google Scholar
Demuth, Katherine. 1989. Maturation and the acquisition of the Sesotho passive. Language 65: 56–80.Google Scholar
Demuth, Katherine and Johnson, Mark.1989. Interaction between discourse functions and agreement in Setswana. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 11: 21–35.Google Scholar
Filchenko, Andrey. 2007. Aspect [sic] of the Grammar of Eastern Khanty. PhD dissertation, Tomsk State Pedagogical University.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette. 1988. Universals of topic-comment structure. In Hammond, M., Moravcsik, E. and Wirth, J. (eds.), Studies in Linguistic Typology, 209–239. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette. 2012. Pragmatics and information structure. In Allan, Keith and Jaszczolt, Kasia (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics, 585–598. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Han, Jeonghan. 1999. On Grammatical Coding of Information Structure in Korean: A Role and Reference Grammar Account. PhD dissertation, University at Buffalo (SUNY) [available on RRG website, https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/].Google Scholar
Kibrik, Alexander E. 1979. Canonical ergativity and Daghestan languages. In Planck, Frans (ed.), Ergativity, 61–78. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kihara, C. Patrick. 2017. Aspects of Gĩkũyũ (Kikuyu) Complex Sentences: A Role and Reference Grammar analysis. PhD dissertation, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf [available on RRG website, https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/].Google Scholar
Kim, Alan H. O. 1988. Preverbal focusing and type XXIII languages. In M. Hammond, E. Moravcsik and J. Wirth (eds.), Studies in Syntactic Typology, 147–172. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Koshkaryova, N. 2000. Sentences with ditransitive verbs in Khanty. Paper presented at the 2000 RRG Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred and Musan, Renate (eds.). 2012. The Expression of Information Structure. (The Expression of Cognitive Categories 5). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1972a. Functional Sentence Perspective: A case study from Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry 3: 269–320.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1972b. Pronominalization, reflexivization, and direct discourse. Linguistic Inquiry 3: 161–196.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1975. Three perspectives in the functional approach to syntax. CLS Parasession on Functionalism, 276–336.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1991. Remarks on quantifier scope. In Nakajima, H. (ed.), Current English Linguistics in Japan, 261–287. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kuno, S., Takami, K. and Wu, Y.. 1999. Quantifier scope in English, Chinese and Japanese. Language 75: 63–111.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1987. Sentence focus, information structure, and the thetic-categorial distinction. Berkeley Linguistic Society 13: 366–382.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Latrouite, Anja. 2011. Case and Voice in Tagalog. PhD dissertation, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf [available on RRG website, https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/].Google Scholar
Latrouite, Anja. 2021. Specification predication: Unexpectedness and cleft constructions in Tagalog. Faits de Langues 52(1): 227–254. doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/19589514–05201011.Google Scholar
Latrouite, Anja and Riester, Arndt. 2018. The role of information structure for morphosyntactic choices in Tagalog. In Riesberg, Sonja and Shiohara, Asako (eds.), Perspectives on Information Structure in Austronesian Languages. Studies in Diversity Linguistics, 247–284. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Latrouite, Anja and Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2021. An RRG account of aspects of the information structure-syntax interface in Tagalog. In Van Valin (ed.), 257–283.Google Scholar
Nuhn, Patrick. 2021. Ay-Inversion in Tagalog: Information Structure and Morphosyntax of an Austronesian Language. Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press.Google Scholar
O’Connor, Rob. 2008. A prosodic projection for Role and Reference Grammar. In Van Valin (ed.), 227–244.Google Scholar
Park, Ki-seong. 1995. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Case Marking in Korean: A Role and Reference Grammar Account. PhD dissertation, University at Buffalo (SUNY) [available on RRG website, https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/].Google Scholar
Planck, Frans. 1995. Double Case: Agreement by Suffixaufnahme. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul. 1976. The subject in Philippine languages: Actor, topic, actor-topic, or none of the above. In Li, Charles (ed.), Subject and Topic, 491–518. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul and Otanes, Fe. 1972. Tagalog Reference Grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Schieffelin, Bambi. 1985. The acquisition of Kaluli. In Slobin, Dan I. (ed.), The Cross-Linguistic Study of Language Acquisition, 525–593. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sgall, Petr, Hajicova, Eva and Panevova, Jarmila. 1986. The Meaning of the Sentence in Its Semantic and Pragmatic Aspects, ed. by Mey, Jacob L.. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Shimojo, Mitsuaki. 2008. How missing is the missing verb? The verb-less numeral quantifier construction in Japanese. In Van Valin (ed.), 285–304.Google Scholar
Van Hooste, Koen. 2018. Instruments and Related Concepts at the Syntax–Semantics Interface. Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press.Google Scholar
Van Hooste, Koen. 2021. A cross-linguistic survey of the instrument-subject alternation. In Van Valin (ed.), 169–188.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1990. Functionalism, anaphora and syntax. (Review article on S. Kuno, Functional Syntax.) Studies in Language 14: 169–219.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1994. Extraction restrictions, competing theories and the argument from the poverty of the stimulus. In Lima, Susan, Corrigan, Roberta L. and Iverson, Gregory K. (eds.), The Reality of Linguistic Rules, 243–259. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1998. The acquisition of wh-questions and the mechanisms of language acquisition. In Tomasello, Michael (ed.), The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, 221–249. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum [available on RRG website, https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/].Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2005. Exploring the Syntax–Semantics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2008. Some remarks on Universal Grammar. In Guo, J., Lieven, E., Ervin-Tripp, S., Budwig, N., Őzçalişkan, S. and Nakamura, K. (eds.), Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Psychology of Language: Research in the Tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin, 311–320. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. (ed.). 2008. Investigations of the Syntax–Semantics–Pragmatics Interface. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2009. Privileged syntactic arguments, pivots and controllers. In Guerrero, Lilián, Cerda, Sergio Ibáñez and Belloro, Valeria A. (eds.), Studies in Role and Reference Grammar, 45–68. Mexico: UNAM.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2016. An overview of information structure in three Amazonian languages. In Jocelyn Fernandez-Vest, M. M. and Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. (eds.), Information Structuring of Spoken Language from a Crosslinguistic Perspective, 77–92. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. (ed.). 2021. Challenges at the Syntax–Semantics–Pragmatics Interface: A Role and Reference Grammar Perspective. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. and LaPolla, Randy J.. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus. 1999. Intonation and Information Structure. Habilitationsschrift, University of Konstanz.Google Scholar