Multifactorial Information Management (MIM): summing up the emerging alternative to Information Structure

References

Alpher, Barry. 2001. Ideophones in interaction with intonation and the expression of new information in some indigenous languages of Australia. In F. K. Erhard Voeltz & Christa Kilian-Hatz (eds.), Ideophones, 9–24. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.44.03alpSearch in Google Scholar

Auer, Peter. 2005. Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text 25(1). 7–36.10.1515/text.2005.25.1.7Search in Google Scholar

Behrens, Leila. 2012. Evidentiality, modality, focus and other puzzles: Some reflections on metadiscourse and typology. In Andrea C. Schalley (ed.), Practical theories and empirical practice: A linguistic perspective, 185–244. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.40.08behSearch in Google Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar. 2015. Distributional typology: Statistical inquiries into the dynamics of linguistic diversity. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199677078.013.0046Search in Google Scholar

Boersma, Paul & David Weenink. 2017. Praat (version 6.0.28). Amsterdam: Phonetic Sciences, University of Amsterdam. http://www.praat.org/ .Search in Google Scholar

Büring, Daniel. 2009. Towards a typology of focus realization. In Malte Zimmermann & Caroline Féry (eds.), Information structure: Theoretical, typological, and experimental perspectives, 177–205. oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199570959.003.0008Search in Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and points of view. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 25–56. New York: Academic Press.Search in 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.Search in Google Scholar

Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Margret Selting. 2018. Interactional linguistics. Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781139507318Search in Google Scholar

Dachkovsky, Svetlana, Christina Healy & Wendy Sandler. 2013. Visual intonation in two sign languages. Phonology 30 (2). 211–252. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675713000122.Search in Google Scholar

Dachkovsky, Svetlana & Wendy Sandler. 2009. Visual Intonation in the Prosody of a Sign Language. Language and Speech 52(2–3). 287–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830909103175.Search 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

Dik, Simon C. 1997. The theory of functional grammar, Part 1: The structure of the clause. In Kees Hengeveld (ed.), Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Dingemanse, Mark & Kimi Akita. 2017. An inverse relation between expressiveness and grammatical integration: On the morphosyntactic typology of ideophones, with special reference to Japanese. Journal of Linguistics 53(3). 501–532. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002222671600030X.Search in Google Scholar

Du Bois, John W. 2014. Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics 25(3). 359–410. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0024.Search in Google Scholar

Elvira-García, Wendy. 2017. Create pictures with tiers v.4.4. Praat Script. http://stel.ub.edu/labfon/en/praat-scripts.Search in Google Scholar

Endriss, Cornelia. 2009. Quantificational topics: A scopal treatment of exceptional wide scope phenomena. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-90-481-2303-2Search in Google Scholar

Enfield, Nicholas J. & Jack Sidnell. 2017. The concept of action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781139025928Search in Google Scholar

Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1997. The dynamics of focus structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511519949Search in Google Scholar

Evans, Nicholas, Henrik Bergqvist & Lila San Roque. 2018. The grammar of engagement II: Typology and diachrony. Language and Cognition 10(1). 141–170. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2017.22.Search in Google Scholar

Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox & Sandra A. Thompson. 2013. Units and/or action trajectories? In Beatrice Szczepek Reed & Geoffrey Raymond (eds.), Units of talk – Units of action, 13–56. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slsi.25.02forSearch in Google Scholar

Forker, Diana & Oleg Belyaev. 2016. Word Order and Focus Particles in Nakh-Daghestanian Languages. In M. M. Jocelyne Fernandez-Vest & Robert D. Van ValinJr. (eds.), Information structuring of spoken language from a cross-linguistic perspective, 239–262. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110368758-012Search in Google Scholar

Friedman, Victor A. 2012. Perhaps mirativity is phlogiston, but admirativity is perfect: On Balkan evidential strategies. Linguistic Typology 16(3). 505–527. https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0019.Search in Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 2018. On understanding grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.213Search in Google Scholar

Gómez-González, María A. 1997. On theme, topic and givenness: The state of the art. Moenia 3. 135–155.Search in Google Scholar

Goodwin, Charles. 2013. The co-operative, transformative organization of human action and knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics 46(1). 8–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.003.Search in Google Scholar

Güldemann, Tom. 2010. The relation between focus and theticity in the Tuu family. In Ines Fiedler & Anne Schwarz (eds.), The Expression of information structure: A documentation of its diversity across Africa, 69–93. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.91.03gulSearch in Google Scholar

Güldemann, Tom, Sabine Zerbian & Malte Zimmermann. 2015. Variation in information structure with special reference to Africa. Annual Review of Linguistics 1(1). 155–178.10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-125134Search in Google Scholar

Gundel, Jeanette K. 1988. Universals of topic-comment structure. In Michael Hammond, Edith A. Moravcsik & Jessica R. Wirth (eds.), Studies in syntactic typology, 209–239. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.17.16gunSearch in Google Scholar

Gundel, Jeanette K., Nancy Hedberg & Zacharski Ron. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69(2). 274–307. https://doi.org/10.2307/416535.Search in Google Scholar

Harris, Daniel W. 2019. We talk to people, not contexts. Philosophical Studies 177. 2713–2733. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-019-01335-8.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

Jakobson, Roman. 1960. Linguistics and Poetics. In Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), Style in Language, 350–377. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.1515/9783110802122.18Search in Google Scholar

Kamide, Yuki, Gerry T. M Altmann & Sarah L. Haywood. 2003. The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 49(1). 133–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00023-8.Search in Google Scholar

Kerr, Betsy. 2014. Left dislocation in French: Information structure vs. (?) Interactional Linguistics. In Stacey Katz Bourns & Lindsy L. Myers (eds.), Perspectives on linguistic structure and context: Studies in honor of Knud Lambrecht, 223–240. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.244.11kerSearch in Google Scholar

Krifka, Manfred & Renate Musan. 2012. Information structure: Overview and linguistic issues. In Manfred Krifka & Renate Musan (eds.), The expression of information structure, 1–44. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110261608.1Search in Google Scholar

Kristensen, Line Burholt, Lin Wang, Karl Magnus Petersson & Hagoort Peter. 2013. The interface between language and attention: Prosodic focus marking recruits a general attention network in spoken language comprehension. Cerebral Cortex 23(8). 1836–1848. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhs164.Search 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

Lambrecht, Knud. 2001. A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics 39(3). 463–516.10.1515/ling.2001.021Search in Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. & Nicholas Evans. 2010. Time for a sea-change in linguistics: response to comments on ‘the myth of language universals. Lingua 120. 2733–2758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.08.001.Search in Google Scholar

Likhacheva, Lidia. 2010. La construction détachée à gauche dans l’alternance des tours de parole. Journal of French Language Studies 20(2). 171–188. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095926950999038X.Search in Google Scholar

Matić, Dejan. in press. Alternatives to information structure. In Davide Garassino & Daniel Jacob (eds.), When data challenges theory: Non-prototypical, unexpected and paradoxical evidence in the field of information structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.273.03matSearch in Google Scholar

Matić, Dejan. 2015. Tag questions and focus markers: Evidence from the Tompo dialect of Even. In M. M. Jocelyne Fernandez-Vest & Robert D. Van ValinJr. (eds.), Information structuring of spoken language from a cross-linguistic perspective, 167–190. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110368758-009Search in Google Scholar

Matić, Dejan & Daniel Wedgwood. 2013. The meanings of focus: The significance of an interpretation-based category in cross-linguistic analysis. Journal of Linguistics 49(1). 127–163. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226712000345.Search in Google Scholar

Matić, Dejan & Irina Nikolaeva. 2018. From polarity focus to salient polarity: From things to processes. In Christine Dimroth & Stefan Sudhoff (eds.), The grammatical realization of polarity contrast: Theoretical, empirical, and typological approaches, 9–53. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.249.01matSearch in Google Scholar

Ozerov, Pavel. 2014. Information packaging in Burmese. Bundoora: La Trobe University PhD Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Ozerov, Pavel. 2015a. Telling a story with (almost) no tenses: The structure of written narrative in Burmese. Linguistics 53(5). 1169–1201. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2015-0027.Search in Google Scholar

Ozerov, Pavel. 2015b. Information structure without topic and focus: Differential object marking in Burmese. Studies in Language 39(2). 386–423. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.39.2.04oze.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

Portner, Paul & Katsuhiko Yabushita. 1998. The semantics and pragmatics of topic phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 21(2). 117–157. https://doi.org/10.2307/25001699.Search in Google Scholar

Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics in pragmatics and philosophy I. Philosophica 27(1). 53–94.10.21825/philosophica.82606Search in Google Scholar

Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1(1). 75–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02342617.Search in Google Scholar

Sandler, Wendy. 2018. The body as evidence for the nature of language. Frontiers in Psychology 9. 1782. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01782.Search in Google Scholar

Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 2006. Theticity. In Giuliano Bernini & Marcia L. Schwarz (eds.), Pragmatic organization of discourse in the languages of Europe, 255–308. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110892222.255Search in Google Scholar

Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1996. Relevance: Communication and cognition, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Search in Google Scholar

Stalnaker, Robert. 2002. Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25(5). 701–721. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020867916902.10.1023/A:1020867916902Search in Google Scholar

Stalnaker, Robert. 2008. A response to Abbott on presupposition and common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 31(5). 539–544.10.1007/s10988-008-9047-9Search in Google Scholar

Su, Danjie. 2016. Grammar emerges through reuse and modification of prior utterances. Discourse Studies 18(3). 330–353.10.1177/1461445616634551Search in Google Scholar

Tomlin, Russell S. 1997. Mapping conceptual representations into linguistic representations: The role of attention in grammar. In Eric Pederson & Nuyts Jan (eds.), Language and conceptualization, 162–189. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139086677.007Search in Google Scholar

Vallduví, Enric. 1992. The Informational Component. New York: Garland Press.Search in Google Scholar

Vittrant, Alice. 2004. La modalité et ses corrélats en birman dans une perspective comparative. Paris: Université Paris 8 PhD Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

van der Wal, Jenneke. 2015. Information structure, (inter)subjectivity and objectification. Journal of Linguistics 51(02). 425–464. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226714000541.Search in Google Scholar

van der Wal, Jenneke. 2016. Diagnosing focus. Studies in Language 40(2). 259–301. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.40.2.01van.Search in Google Scholar

Wedgwood, Daniel. 2005. Shifting the focus: From static structures to the dynamics of interpretation. Oxford: Elsevier Science.10.1163/9780080457314Search in Google Scholar

Yap, Foong Ha, Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds.). 2011. Nominalization in Asian languages: Diachronic and typological perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.96Search in Google Scholar

Zeisler, Bettina. 2018. Don’t believe in a paradigm that you haven’t manipulated yourself! – evidentiality, speaker attitude, and admirativity in Ladakhi. Himalayan Linguistics 17(1). 67–130. https://doi.org/10.5070/H917136797.Search in Google Scholar

Zimmermann, Malte & Edgar Onea. 2011. Focus marking and focus interpretation. Lingua 121(11). 1651–1670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.06.002.Search in Google Scholar