Similarity of mirative and contrastive focus: three parameters for describing attention markers

References

Acharya, Jayaraj. 1991. A descriptive grammar of Nepali and analyzed corpus. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Adamson, Lauren B. & Duncan McArthur. 1995. Joint attention, affect and culture. In Chris Moore & McArthur Duncan (eds.), Joint attention: Its origins and role in development, 205–222. Hillsdale & New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Search in Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2012. The essence of mirativity. Linguistic Typology 16(3). 435–485. https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0017.Search in Google Scholar

Andvik, Erik. 2010. A grammar of Tshangla (Brill’s Tibetan studies library, Languages of the Greater Himalayan region). Leiden: Brill.10.1163/ej.9789004178274.i-490Search in Google Scholar

Bates, Elizabeth, Luigia Camaioni & Virginia Voltera. 1976. The acquisition of performatives prior to speech. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 21. 205–226.Search in Google Scholar

Bruner, Jerome. 1983. Child’s talk: Learning to use language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Bruner, Jerome. 1995. From joint attention to the meeting of minds: An introduction. In Chris Moore & McArthur Duncan (eds.), Joint attention: Its origins and role in development, 1–14. Hillsdale & New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Search in Google Scholar

Chandralal, Dileep. 2010. Sinhala (London Oriental and African Language Library 15). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/loall.15Search in Google Scholar

Charman, Tony. 2003. Why is joint attention a pivotal skill in autism? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 358. 315–324. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2002.1199.Search in Google Scholar

DeLancey, Scott. 1997. Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 1. 33–52. https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1997.1.1.33.Search in Google Scholar

DeLancey, Scott. 2001. The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33. 369–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(01)80001-1.Search in Google Scholar

Dickinson, Connie. 2000. Mirativity in Tsafiki. Studies in Language 24(2). 379–421. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.24.2.06dic.Search in Google Scholar

Diessel, Holger. 1999. Demonstratives: Form, function, and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.42Search in Google Scholar

Diessel, Holger. 2006. Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 17(4). 463–489. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog.2006.015.Search in Google Scholar

Eilan, Naomi, Christopher Hoerl, Teresa McCormack & Johannes Roessler (eds.). 2005. Joint attention: Communication and other minds issues in philosophy and psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199245635.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Emeneau, Murray B. 1951. Studies in Vietnamese (Annamese) grammar (University of California Publications in Linguistics 8). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Search in Google Scholar

Evans, Nick, Henrik Bergqvist & Lila San Roque. 2018. The grammar of engagement I: Framework and initial exemplification. Language and Cognition 10. 110–140. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2017.21.Search in Google Scholar

Grossmann, Tobias & Mark H. Johnson. 2010. Consciousness and Cognition 51. 268–278.Search in Google Scholar

Gunde, Jeanette K. & Thorstein Fretheim. 2006. Topic and focus. In Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds.), Handbook of pragmatics, 175–196. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470756959.ch8Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood. 1967. Notes of transitivity and theme in English, part II. Journal of Linguistics 3. 199–244. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226700016613.Search in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language 86(3). 663–687. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2010.0021.Search in Google Scholar

Hengeveld, Kees & Hella Olbertz. 2012. Didn’t you know? Mirativity does exist! Linguistic Typology 16(3). 487–503. https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0018.Search in Google Scholar

Hill, Nathan W. 2012. ‘Mirativity’ does not exist: ḥdug in ‘Lhasa’ Tibetan and other suspects. Linguistic Typology 16(3). 389–433. https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0016.Search in Google Scholar

Horstmann, Gernot. 2015. The surprise–attention link: A review. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1339(1). 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12679.Search in Google Scholar

Hyslop, Gwendolyn. 2011a. A grammar of Kurtöp. Eugene: University of Oregon dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Hyslop, Gwendylon. 2011b. Mirativity in Kurtöp. Journal of South Asian Linguistics 4(1). 43–60.Search in Google Scholar

Hyslop, Gwendolyn & Karma Tshering. 2010. Preliminary notes on Dakpa (Tawang Monpa). In Stephen Morey & Mark Post (eds.), North East Indian linguistics, vol. 2, 3–21. New Delhi: Foundation & Cambridge University Press.10.1017/UPO9788175968554.003Search in Google Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Jiménez-Fernández, Ángel L. 2015. Towards a typology of focus: Subject position and microvariation at the discourse-syntax interface. Ampersand: An International Journal of General and Applied Linguistics 2. 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2015.03.001.Search in Google Scholar

Krause, Mark A. 1997. Comparative perspectives on pointing and joint attention in children and apes. International Journal of Comparative Psychology 3. 137–157.10.46867/C44K5HSearch in Google Scholar

Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620607Search in Google 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(3). 611–682. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.24.3.06lam.Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical perspectives, vol. 1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Lazard, Gilbert. 1999. Mirativity, evidentiality, mediativity, or other? Linguistic Typology 3. 91–109. https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1999.3.1.91.Search in Google Scholar

Lazard, Gilbert. 2001. On the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33. 359–367.10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00008-4Search in Google Scholar

Mazaudon, Martine. 2003. From discourse to grammar in Tamang: Topic, focus, intensifiers and subordination. In David Bradley, Randy LaPolla, Boyd, Michailovsky & Graham, Thurgood (eds.), Language variation: Papers on variation and change in the Sinosphere and in the Indosphere in honour of James A. Matisoff, 145–158. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar

Mexas, Haris. 2016. Mirativity as realization marking: A cross-linguistic study. Leiden: University of Leiden Master’s thesis.Search in Google Scholar

Michailovsky, Boyd. 1996. L’inférentiel du népali. In Zlatka Guentchéva (ed.), L’Énonciation médiatisée, 109–123. Louvain, Paris: Éditions Peeters (Bibliothèque de l’Information Grammaticale).Search in Google Scholar

Mithun, Marianne. 1992. Is basic word order universal? In Doris L. Payne (ed.), Pragmatics of word order flexibility (Typological Studies in Language, vol. 22), 15–61. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.22.02mitSearch in Google Scholar

Moore, Chris & Philip J. Dunham. 1995. Joint attention: Its origins and role in development. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Search in Google Scholar

Nguyen, Tam Thi Minh. 2013a. A grammar of Bih. University of Oregon Ph.D. dissertation. http://hdl.handle.net/1794/12996 (accessed 7 January 2020).Search in Google Scholar

Nguyen, Tam Thi Minh. 2013b. Mirative and contrastive focus in Bih. In Presentation at the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistic Society, Bangkok, 29–31 May.Search in Google Scholar

Nichols, Johanna. 2011. Ingush grammar (University of California Publications in Linguistics 143). Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.Search in Google Scholar

Östman, J. O. 1981. You know: A discourse functional approach (Pragmatics and Beyond II: 7). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Ozerov, Pavel. 2018. Tracing the sources of information structure: Towards the study of interactional management of information. Journal of Pragmatics 138. 77–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.08.017.Search in Google Scholar

Peterson, John. 2000. Evidentials, inferentials and mirativity in Nepali. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 23(2). 13–37.Search in Google Scholar

Post, Mark. 2007. A grammar of Galo. La Trobe University PhD dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Seemann Axel (ed.). 2012. Joint attention: New developments in psychology, philosophy of mind, and social neuroscience. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/8841.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Talmy, Leonard. 2010. Attention phenomena. In Dirk Geeraerts & Cuyckens Hubert (eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 264–293. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Talmy, Leonard. 2017. The targeting system of language. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262036979.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Tomasello, Michael. 1999. The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674044371Search in Google Scholar

Tomlin, Russell S., Linda Forrest, Ming Ming Pu & Myung Hee Kim. 2011. Discourse semantics. In Teun A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, 2nd edn, 37–63. London: Sage.10.4135/9781446289068.n3Search in Google Scholar

Trần Trọng Giảng. 2018. Teaching final particles in Vietnamese. The Journal of Kanda University of International Studies 30. 455–470.Search in Google Scholar

Wagle, Narayan. 2008 [2005]. Palpasā kyaphe [Palpasa café]. Kathmandu: Nepa∼laya.Search in Google Scholar

Yliniemi, Juha. 2016a. Attention marker =ɕo in Denjongke (Sikkimese Bhutia). Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 39(1). 106–161. https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.39.1.05yli.Search in Google Scholar

Yliniemi, Juha. 2016b. Nepali attention marker ni. Himalayan Linguistics 15(2). 50–87.10.5070/H915231077Search in Google Scholar

Yliniemi, Juha. 2019. A grammar of Denjongke (Sikkimese Bhutia). Helsinki: University of Helsinki Dissertation. http://urn.fi/URN (accessed 8 January 2020).Search in Google Scholar