Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Cambridge Handbooks In Language And Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 The Comparative Syntactic Enterprise
- Part I Comparative Syntax: Theory, Methodology, and Data Collection
- Part II Comparative Syntax: Building Blocks and Combinatorial Properties
- Part III Comparative Syntax: Dependency Relations and Dependency Marking
- Part IV Comparative Syntax: Interfaces
- 26 Syntax Semantics
- 27 Comparative Syntax, Morphology, and “Externalization”
- 28 Syntax and Externalization
- 29 Cross-Modal Comparative Syntax
- 30 Syntax and Information Structure
- 31 Syntactic Dependency Formation in Sentence Processing
- Index
- References
30 - Syntax and Information Structure
from Part IV - Comparative Syntax: Interfaces
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2026
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Cambridge Handbooks In Language And Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 The Comparative Syntactic Enterprise
- Part I Comparative Syntax: Theory, Methodology, and Data Collection
- Part II Comparative Syntax: Building Blocks and Combinatorial Properties
- Part III Comparative Syntax: Dependency Relations and Dependency Marking
- Part IV Comparative Syntax: Interfaces
- 26 Syntax Semantics
- 27 Comparative Syntax, Morphology, and “Externalization”
- 28 Syntax and Externalization
- 29 Cross-Modal Comparative Syntax
- 30 Syntax and Information Structure
- 31 Syntactic Dependency Formation in Sentence Processing
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter seeks to give a brief overview of the syntax of information structure in the generative tradition. It concentrates on the notions of focus and topic, which are defined in a wide sense, and discusses their expression in typologically different languages. It briefly touches upon the notions of contrast and givenness when they relate to topic or focus. Two theoretical perspectives are systematically reviewed. The cartographic approach encodes information structure directly in the clausal spine by means of dedicated projections whose order is fixed cross-linguistically and where discourse-driven word orders result from syntactic features. In the interface-based approach, the information-structural roles of particular constituents are established through the mapping between the PF interface or the conceptual interface, and information-structure-related movement operations are subject to economy. Prosodic properties of both foci and topics are examined and, to the extent possible, related to their syntax. Finally, the chapter discusses typologically valid ordering restrictions between topics and foci and their interaction with scope.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax , pp. 1000 - 1030Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
Aissen, J. 1999. Markedness and subject choice in Optimality Theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 17: 673–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A. 2006. Left dislocation (including CLLD). In Everaert, M. and van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, vol. 2, 668–699. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambar, M. 1999. Aspects of the syntax of focus in Portuguese. In Rebuschi, and Tuller, (eds.), 23–54.Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, E. 1997. Clitic left dislocation and contrastive left dislocation. In Anagnostopoulou, et al. (eds.), 151–192.Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, E. 1999. On experiencers. In Alexiadou, A., Horrocks, G., and Stavrou, M. (eds.), Studies in Greek Syntax, 67–93. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, E., van Riemsdijk, H., and Zwarts, F. (eds). 1997. Materials on Left Dislocation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrason, A., and Visser, M.. 2016. The mosaic evolution of left dislocation in Xhosa. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics 50(1): 139–158.Google Scholar
Aoun, J., and Benmamoun, A.. 1998. Minimality, reconstruction, and movement. Linguistic Inquiry 29(4): 569–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aoun, J., and Choueiri, L.. 2000. Epithets. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 18(1): 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Apel, V. 2017. Information Structure in Fula-Serer: A Detailed Study of Pular in Comparison with Its Relatives. PhD thesis, Humbolt-Universität, Berlin.Google Scholar
Arregi, K. 2003. Clitic left dislocation is contrastive topicalization. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 9(1): 31–44.Google Scholar
Belletti, A. 2001. Inversion as focalization. In Hulk, A. and Pollock, J.-Y. (eds), Subject Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar, 60–90. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belletti, A. 2004. Aspects of the low IP area. In Rizzi, L. (ed.), The Structure of IP and CP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 2, 16–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, J. D., and Wurmbrand, S.. 2008. Case in GB/Minimalism. In Malchukov, A. and Spencer, A. (eds.), Handbook of Case, 44–58. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, J. D., and Wurmbrand, S.. 2012. Word order and scope: Transparent interfaces and the signature. Linguistic Inquiry 43(3): 371–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J., and Mchombo, S.. 1987. Topic, pronoun, and agreement in Chichewa. Language 63: 741–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bródy, M. 1995. Focus and checking theory. In Kenesei, I. (ed.), Levels and Structures: Approaches to Hungarian 5, 31–43. Szeged: JATE.Google Scholar
Buell, L. 2006. The Zulu conjoint/disjoint verb alternation: Focus or constituency. In ZAS Papers in Linguistics 43 (Zaspil 43). Papers in Bantu Grammar and Description, 8–30. Berlin: ZAS.Google Scholar
Büring, D. 1997. The Meaning of Topic and Focus: The 59th Street Bridge Accent. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In Li, N. C (ed.), Subject and Topic, 27–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cheng, L. L.-S., and Downing, L. J.. 2012. Against FocusP: Arguments from Zulu. In Kučerová, I. and Neeleman, A. (eds.), Information Structure: Contrasts and Positions, 247–266. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choe, H. S. 1995. Focus and topic movement in Korean and licensing. In É Kiss, K.(ed.), Discourse Configurational Languages, 269–334. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1971. Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. In Steinberg, D. D. and Jakobovits, L. A. (eds.), Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics, and Psychology, 183–216.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1977. On wh-movement. In Culicover, P., Wasow, T., and Akmajian, A. (eds), Formal Syntax, 71–132. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 1977. The movement nature of left dislocation. Linguistic Inquiry 8(2): 397–411.Google Scholar
Clech-Darbon, A., Rebuschi, G., and Rialland, A.. 1999. Are there cleft sentences in French? In Rebuschi, and Tuller, (eds.), 83–118.Google Scholar
Costa, J. 1998. Word Order Variation: A Constraint-Based Approach. PhD thesis, Leiden University.Google Scholar
Costa, J., and Kula, N.. 2008. Focus at the interface: Evidence from Romance and Bantu. In De Cat, C. and Demuth, K. (eds.), The Bantu–Romance Connection: A Comparative Investigation of Verbal Agreement, DPs, and Information Structure, 293–322. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruschina, S. 2012. Discourse-Related Features and Functional Projections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daneš, F. 1974. Functional sentence perspective and the organization of the text. In Daneš, F. (ed.), Papers in Functional Sentence Perspective, 106–208. Prague: Academia.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Cat, C. 2007a. French Dislocation: Interpretation, Syntax, Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Cat, C. 2007b. French dislocation without movement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25: 485–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Kind, J. 2014. Word order in Kisikongo (H16): On the origins of a preverbal focus position and the pragmatic neutralization of SOV. In Hamlaoui, F. (ed.), Proceedings of the Workshop Bantusynphoni: Preverbal Domain(S) (Zaspil 57), 95–122. Berlin: ZAS.Google Scholar
Destruel, E., Beaver, D. I., and Coppock, E.. 2019. It’s not what you expected! The surprising nature of cleft alternatives in French and English. Frontiers in Psychology 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dezső, L. 1974. Topics in syntactic typology. In Linguistica Generalia. Studies in Linguistic Typology, 191–210. Prague: Charles University.Google Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, C. 1990. Clitic doubling, wh-movement and quantification in Romanian. Linguistic Inquiry 21(3): 351–397.Google Scholar
Downing, B. T. 1970. Syntactic Structure and Phonological Phrasing in English. PhD thesis, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Downing, L. J. 2011. The prosody of “dislocation” in selected Bantu languages. Lingua 121: 772–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downing, L. J., Mtenje, A., and Pompino-Marschall, B.. 2004. Prosody and information structure in Chichewa. In ZAS Papers in Linguistics 43 (ZASPiL 37), 167–186. Berlin: ZAS.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, K. 1995. Discourse Configurational Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
É. Kiss, K. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74(2): 245–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebbinghaus, H. 1913. Memory: A Contribution to Experimental Psychology [Über das Gedächtnis 1885]. Columbia, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Endriss, C. 2009. Quantificational Topics: A Scopal Treatment of Exceptional Wide Scope Phenomena. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldhausen, I. 2010. Sentential Form and Prosodic Structure of Catalan. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Féry, C. 2006. The prosody of topicalization. In Schwabe, K. and Winkler, S. (eds.), On Information Structure, Meaning and Form, 69–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Firbas, J. 1975. On the thematic and the non-thematic section of the sentence. Style and Text 8: 319–334.Google Scholar
Frascarelli, M. 2000. The Syntax–Phonology Interface in Focus and Topic Constructions in Italian. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, M., and Hinterhölzl, R.. 2007. Types of topics in German and Italian. In Schwabe, K. and Winkler, S. (eds.), On Information Structure, Meaning, and Form, 87–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frey, W. 2005. Pragmatic properties of certain German and English left peripheral constructions. Linguistics 43: 89–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genzel, S., Ishihara, S., and Surányi, B.. 2015. The prosodic expression of focus, contrast and givenness: A production study of Hungarian. Lingua 165: 183–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Göksel, A., and Özsoy, A. S.. 2000. Is there a focus position in Turkish? In Göksel, A. and Kerslake, C. (eds.), Studies on Turkish and Turkic languages [Turkologica 4], 219–228. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Gryllia, S. 2009. On the Nature of Preverbal Focus in Greek: A Theoretical and Experimental Approach. PhD thesis, University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Gundel, J. K. 1978. Stress, pronominalization and the given-new distinction. University of Hawaii Working Papers in Linguistics 10(2): 1–13.Google Scholar
Gundel, J. K. 1988. Universals of topic-comment structure. In Hammond, M., Moravcsik, E., and Wirth, J. (eds.), Studies in Syntactic Typology, 209–239. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, L. 2012. Adverbial Clauses, Main Clause Phenomena, and Composition of the Left Periphery. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamlaoui, F. 2008. Focus, contrast and the syntax–phonology interface: The case of French cleft-sentences. In Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Linguists.Google Scholar
Hamlaoui, F. 2009. Le focus à l’interface de la syntaxe et de la phonologie: le cas du français dans une perspective typologique. PhD thesis, Université Paris 3 Sorbonne Nouvelle.Google Scholar
Hamlaoui, F. 2011. On the role of phonology and discourse in Francilian French wh-questions. Journal of Linguistics 47(1): 129–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamlaoui, F., and Makasso, E.-M.. 2015. Focus marking and the unavailability of inversion structures in the Bantu language Bàsàá. Lingua 154: 35–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamlaoui, F., and Szendrői, K.. 2015. A flexible approach to the syntax-phonology mapping of intonational phrases. Phonology 32(1): 79–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamlaoui, F., and Szendrői, K.. 2017. The syntax–phonology mapping of intonational phrases in complex sentences: A flexible approach. Glossa; A Journal of General Linguistics 2(1): 55. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hankamer, J. 1972. Analogical rules in syntax. Proceedings of Chicago Linguistic Society 8: 111–123.Google Scholar
Harlig, J., and Bardovi-Harlig, K. 1988. Accentuation typology, word order and theme-rheme structure. In Hammond, M., Moravcsik, E. A., and Wirth, J. (eds.), Studies in Syntactic Typology, 125–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, K., and Zimmermann, M.. 2004. Nominal and verbal focus in the Chadic languages. In Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society, Amsterdam: De Gruyter 87–101.Google Scholar
Heim, I. 1982. The Semantics of Indefinite Noun Phrases. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Hirschbühler, P. 1997. On the source of lefthand NPs in French. In Anagnostopoulou, et al. (eds.), 151–192.Google Scholar
Hooper, J. B., and Thompson, S. A.. 1973. On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4(4): 465–497.Google Scholar
Hyman, L. 1999. The interaction between focus and tone in Bantu. In Rebuschi, and Tuller, (eds.), 151–177.Google Scholar
Hyman, L., and Mathangwane, J.. 1998. Tonal domains and depressor consonants in Ikalanga. In Hyman, L. and Kisseberth, C. W. (eds.), Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Tone, 195–229. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Iatridou, S. 1995. Clitics and island effects. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 2(1): 11–30.Google Scholar
Issever, S. 2006. On the NSR and focus projection in Turkish. In Yagcioglu, S. and Cem Deger, A. (eds.), Advances in Turkish Linguistics: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, 421–435. Dokuz Eylül University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1997. The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge: MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs, J. 2001. The dimensions of topic-comment. Linguistics 39(04): 641–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiménez-Fernández, A. L., and Miyagawa, S.. 2014. A features-inheritance approach to root phenomena and parametric variation. Lingua 145: 276–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahnemuyipour, A. 2009. The Syntax of Sentential Stress. Oxford Scholarship Online.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimenyi, A. 1980. A Relational Grammar of Kinyarwanda. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Koch, K. 2008. Intonation and Focus in Nte?kepmxcin (Thompson River Salish). PhD thesis, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Koni Muluwa, J., and Bostoen, K.. 2014. The immediate before the verb focus position in Nsong (Bantu B85d, DRC): A corpus-based exploration. In Hamlaoui, F. (ed.), Proceedings of the Workshop Bantusynphoni: Preveral Domain(S) (Zaspil 57), 123–135. Berlin: ZAS.Google Scholar
Krifka, M. 1998. Scope inversion under the rise-fall contour in German. Linguistic Inquiry 29(1): 75–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, M. 2001. For a structured meaning account of questions and answers. In Féry, C. and Sternefeld, W. (eds.), Audiatur Vox Sapientia: A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow, 287–319. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Krifka, M. 2007. Basic notions of information structure. In Féry, C., Fanselow, G., and Krifka, M. (eds.), Interdisciplinary Studies of Information Structure, vol. 6, 13–56. Potsdam: Universität Potsdam.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. 1972. Functional sentence perspective: A case study of Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry 3: 269–320.Google Scholar
Kush, D., Lohndal, T., and Sprouse, J.. 2019. On the island sensitivity of topicalization in Norwegian: An experimental investigation. Language 95(3): 393–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laka, I. 1990. Negation in Syntax: On the Nature of Functional Categories and Projections. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K. 2001. A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics 39: 463–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Law, P. 2007. Topicalization in Malagasy, Tagalog and Tsou. In Schwabe, K. and Winkler, S. (eds.), On Information Structure, Meaning and Form: Generalizations across Languages, 129–154. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
López, L. 2016. Dislocations and information structure. In Féry, C. and Ishihara, S. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, 402–421. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Marty, A. 1884. Über subjectslose Sätze und das Verhältnis der Grammatik zu Logik und Psychologie. Technical report, Vierteljahresschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie.Google Scholar
Mathesius, V. 1975. A Functional Analysis of Present Day English on a General Linguistics Basis. The Hague: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miyagawa, S. 2012. Agreements that occur mainly in main clauses. In Aalbrecht, L., Haegeman, L., and Nye, R. (eds.), Main Clause Phenomena: New Horizons, 79–112. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morimoto, Y. 2000. Discourse Configurationality in Bantu Morphosyntax. PhD thesis, Stanford University, CA.Google Scholar
Morimoto, Y. 2006. Agreement properties and word order in comparative Bantu. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 43: 161–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, A., and van de Koot, H.. 2012. Towards a unified encoding of contrast and scope. In Neeleman, A. and Vermeulen, R. (eds.), The Syntax of Topic, Focus, and Contrast: An Interface-Based Approach, 39–76. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, A., and van de Koot, H.. 2016. Word order and information structure. In Féry, C. and Ishihara, S. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, 383–401. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Neeleman, A., and Vermeulen, R.. 2012. The syntactic expression of information structure. In Neeleman, A. and Vermeulen, R. (eds.), The Syntax of Topic, Focus, and Contrast: An Interface-Based Approach, 1–38. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, A., Titov, E., van de Koot, H., and Vermeulen, R.. 2009. A syntactic typology of topic, focus and contrast. In van Craenenbroeck, J. (ed.), Alternatives to Cartography, 15–52. Amsterdam: Mouton De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikolaeva, I. 2001. Secondary topic as a relation in information structure. Linguistics 39(1): 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ott, D. 2014. An ellipsis approach to contrastive left-dislocation. Linguistic Inquiry 45(2): 269–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ott, D. 2015. Connectivity in left-dislocation and the composition of the left-periphery. Linguistic Variation 15(2): 225–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ott, D. 2017. The syntax and pragmatics of dislocation: A non-templatic approach. In Proceedings of the 2017 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, 1–13.Google Scholar
Ott, D., and de Vries, M.. 2016. Right-dislocation as deletion. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34(2): 641–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ouhalla, J. 1994. Introducing Transformational Grammar: from Rules to Principles and Parameters. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Paul, I. 2003. Multiple topics: Evidence from Malagasy. In Riehl, A. and Savella, T. (eds.), Proceedings of the AFLA9 (Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 19), 137–148, Ithaca, NY: Cornell Linguistic Club Publications.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M., and Hyman, L.. 2009. Focus in Aghem. In Zimmermann, M. and Féry, C. (eds.), Information Structure: Theoretical, Typological, and Experimental Perspectives, 206–233. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Prince, E. 1985. Fancy syntax and shared knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics 9: 65–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rebuschi, G., and Tuller, L.. 1999. The Grammar of Focus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, T. 1982. Pragmatics and Linguistics: An Analysis of Sentence Topics. Technical report, IULC, Bloomington, IN.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, T. 1995. Interface strategies. In OTS Working Papers in Theoretical Linguistics, 55–109. Utrecht: OTS, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. 2006. Interface Strategies: Optimal and Costly Computations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, L. (ed.), Elements of Grammar, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, C. 1996. Information structure in discourse. In Yoon, J. and Kathol, A. (eds.), OSU Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 49, 91–136. Ohio: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Rooth, M. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossi, M. 1999. L’intonation: le système du français: description et modélisation. Paris: Orphys.Google Scholar
Rubio Alcalá, C. 2014. Syntactic Constraints on Topicalization Phenomena. PhD thesis, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Saebo, K. J. 1998. Topic, focus and quantifier raising. In Dekker, P., Stokhof, M., and Venema, Y. (eds.), Proceedings of the 11th Amsterdam Colloquium, 67–72. Amsterdam: Institute for Logic, Language and Computation.Google Scholar
Samek-Lodovici, V. 2005. Prosody–syntax interaction in the expression of focus. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23: 687–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samek-Lodovici, V. 2006. When right dislocation meets the left-periphery: A unified analysis of Italian non-final focus. Lingua 116(6): 836–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samek-Lodovici, V. 2015. The Interaction of Focus, Givenness, and Prosody: A Study of Italian Clause Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, E. 1986. On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology 3: 371–405. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675700000695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sgall, P., Hajičová, E., and Benešová, E.. 1973. Topic, Focus and Generative Semantics. Taunus: Kronberg.Google Scholar
Skopeteas, S., and Fanselow, G.. 2010. Focus in Georgian and the expression of contrast. Lingua 120(6): 1370–1391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strawson, P. F. 1964. Identifying reference and truth values. Theoria 30: 96–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Surányi, B., Ishihara, S., and Schubö, F.. 2012. Syntax-prosody mapping, topic-comment structure and stress-focus correspondence in Hungarian. In Elordieta, G. and Prieto, P. (eds.), Prosody and Meaning, 35–72. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, A., and den Dikken, M.. 2003. Islands. In Cheng, L. L.-S. and Sybesma, R. (eds.), The Second Glot International State-of-the-Article Book: The Latest in Linguistics, 213–240. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szendrői, K. 2001. Focus and the Syntax–Phonology Interface. PhD thesis, University College of London.Google Scholar
Szendrői, K. 2002. Stress-focus correspondence in Italian. In Beyssade, C., Bok-Bennema, R., Drijkoningen, F., and Monachesi, P. (eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory. Selected Papers from “Going Romance” 2000, 287–303. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szendrői, K. 2003. A stress-based approach to the syntax of Hungarian focus. The Linguistic Review 20: 37–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szendrői, K. 2017. The syntax of information structure and the PF interface. Glossa: A Journal of Linguistics 2(1): 32. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.140.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, K. T. 1982. Extraction from relative clauses in Norwegian. In Engdahl, E. and Ejerhed, E. (eds.), Readings on Unbounded Dependencies in Scandinavian Languages, 205–221. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
Titov, E. 2020a. Morphosyntactic encoding of information structure in Akan. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1): 27. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.576.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I.-M. 1995. Focusing in modern Greek. In Kiss, K. É. (ed.), Discourse Configurational Languages, 176–206. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuller, L. 1992. The syntax of postverbal focus constructions in Chadic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 10(2): 303–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uriagereka, J. 1995. Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry 26(1): 79–123.Google Scholar
van der Wal, J. 2006. The disjoint verb form and an empty immediate after verb position in Makhuwa. In Downing, L., Marten, L., and Zerbian, S. (eds.), ZAS Papers in Linguistics 43: Papers in Bantu Grammar and Description 233–256. Berlin: ZAS.Google Scholar
van der Wal, J. 2009. Word Order and Information Structure in Makhuwa-Enahara. PhD thesis, University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Vermeulen, R. 2012. Word order variation and information structure in Japanese and Korean. In Neeleman, A. and Vermeulen, R. (eds.), The Syntax of Topic, Focus, and Contrast: An Interface-Based Approach, 77–118. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watters, J. 1979. Focus in Aghem: A study of its formal correlates and typology. In Hyman, L. (ed.), Aghem Grammatical Structure, 137–197. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Yoneda, N. 2011. Word order in Matengo (N13): Topicality and informational roles. Lingua 121: 754–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeller, J. 2009. On clitic left dislocation in Zulu. In Ermisch, S. (ed.), Frankfurt African Studies Bulletin 18 (2006): Focus and Topic in African Languages 131–156. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Zerbian, S. 2007. Subject/object-asymmetry in Northern Sotho. In Schwabe, K. and Winkler, S. (eds.), Information Structure and the Architecture of Grammar: A Typological Perspective, 323–346. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.2 AAA
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The HTML of this chapter
complies with version 2.2 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), offering more comprehensive accessibility measures for a broad range
of users and attains the highest
(AAA)
level of WCAG compliance, optimising the user experience by meeting the most extensive
accessibility guidelines.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
Visualised data also available as non-graphical data
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.
Visual Accessibility
Use of high contrast between text and background colour
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.