1887
image of On the status of information structure markers
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The paper at hand deals with morphological marking of information structural relations from the perspective of North-Western Siberian languages. Given many items (morphemes as well as particles and clitics) which have been analyzed as markers of information structure in these languages, I try to discuss whether they indeed mark information structural relations or whether this supposed marking is rather a side effect of other functions expressed. In order to develop criteria for decision marking, I rely on the concepts of sufficiency as well as necessity and sufficient as well as necessary conditions, respectively. Additionally, I argue that the latter can be arranged hierarchically with respect to their reliability for the evaluation of potential markers of information structure, being intertwined with functional and transparency coding principles.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sl.21043.dab
2022-04-11
2022-05-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Artemjev, Nikolaj M.
    2013Dolganskij jazyk. 10–11 klassy. Učebnoe posobie dlja obščeobrazovatel’nych učreždenij. Čast’ 2. Morfologija. [The Dolgan language. 10th to 11th grade. Textbook for secondary schools. Part 2. Morphology]. Saint Petersburg: Almaz-Graf.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Assmann, Muriel, Daniel Büring, Izabela Jordanoska & Max Prüller
    2019 Towards a theory of morphosyntactic focus marking. Unpublished manuscript. https://homepage.univie.ac.at/daniel.buring/locker/Assmannetal2019.MorphFoc.pdf (last access15 March 2022).
  3. Brykina, Maria, Valentin Gusev, Sándor Szeverényi & Beáta Wagner-Nagy
    2018Nganasan Spoken Language Corpus (NSLC). Archived at Hamburger Zentrum für Sprachkorpora. Version 0.2. Published on2018-06-12. hdl.handle.net/11022/0000-0007-C6F2-8
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bühler, Karl
    1965 [1934]Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. 2nd edn.Stuttgart: Fischer.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Castrén 1854 = Schiefner, Anton
    (ed.) 1854M. Alexander Castrén’s Grammatik der samojedischen Sprachen. Saint-Peterburg: Eggers et Comp.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Däbritz, Chris Lasse
    2021Topik, Fokus und Informationsstatus: Modellierung am Material nordwestsibirischer Sprachen. Language, Context and Cognition 17. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. . Forthcoming. A grammar of Dolgan: A Northern Siberian Turkic language of the Taimyr Peninsula. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004516427
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004516427 [Google Scholar]
  8. Däbritz, Chris Lasse, Nina Kudryakova & Eugénie Stapert
    2019 INEL Dolgan Corpus. Version 1.0. Published on2019-08-31. hdl.handle.net/11022/0000-0007-CAE7-1.
  9. Däbritz, Chris Lasse & Valentin Gusev
    2021 INEL Evenki Corpus. Version 1.0. Publication date2021-12-31. Archived at Universität Hamburg. https://hdl.handle.net/11022/0000-0007-F43C-3.
  10. Dalrymple, Mary & Irina Nikolaeva
    2011Objects and information structure (Cambridge studies in linguistics 131). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511993473
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511993473 [Google Scholar]
  11. É. Kiss, Katalin
    1998 Identificational focus versus information focus. Language74(2). 245–273. 10.1353/lan.1998.0211
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1998.0211 [Google Scholar]
  12. Geeraerts, Dirk
    1996 On necessary and sufficient conditions. Journal of Semantics5. 275–291. 10.1093/jos/5.4.275
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/5.4.275 [Google Scholar]
  13. Gorelova, Liliya M.
    2006 Typology of information structures in the Altaic languages. InElena V. Boikova & Rostislay B. Rybakov (eds.), Kinship in the Altaic world. Proceedings of the 48th Permanent International Altaistic Conference, 149–171. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Götze, Michael, Thomas Weskott, Cornelia Endriss, Ines Fiedler, Stefan Hinterwimmer, Svetlana Petrova, Anne Schwarz, Stavros Skopeteas & Ruben Stoel
    2007 Information structure. InStephanie Dipper, Michael Götze & Stavros Skopeteas (eds.), Information structure in cross-linguistic corpora (Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 07), 147–187. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam. Available at: https://publishup.uni-potsdam.de/opus4-ubp/frontdoor/deliver/index/docId/2036/file/Kapitel6_07.pdf (last access15 March 2022).
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Grice, H. Paul
    1975 Logic and conversation. InPeter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics. Vol.3: Speech acts, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Grönbech, Kaare
    1936Der türkische Sprachbau. Copenhagen: Levin & Munksgaard.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Grzech, Karolina
    2016 The marker =ga and topicality in Tena Kichwa. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics18. 33–52.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Haig, Geoffrey & Stefan Schnell
    2014Annotations using GRAID (Grammatical relations and animacy in discourse). Manual version 7.0. Available athttps://multicast.aspra.uni-bamberg.de/data/pubs/graid/Haig+Schnell2014_GRAID-manual_v7.0.pdf (last access15 March 2022).
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Haspelmath, Martin
    2010 Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language86(3). 663–687. 10.1353/lan.2010.0021
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2010.0021 [Google Scholar]
  20. Heine, Bernd
    1997Possession: Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511581908
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511581908 [Google Scholar]
  21. Junghanns, Uwe
    2002 Informationsstrukturierung in slavischen Sprachen: Zur Rekonstruktion in einem syntax-zentrierten Modell der Grammatik. Leipzig: University of Leipzig Habilitation dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Junghanns, Uwe & Gerhild Zybatow
    2009 Grammatik und Informationsstruktur. InSebastian Kempgen, Peter Kosta, Tilman Berger & Karl Gutschmidt (eds.), Die slavischen Sprachen (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 32:1), 684–707. Berlin: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Khanina, Olesya & Andrey Shluinsky, Andrey
    . In prep. The digital corpus of Enets. Unpublished corpus.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Kim, Alan
    1988 Preverbal focusing and type XXIII languages. InMichael Hammond, Edith Moravcsik & Jessica Wirth (eds.), Studies in syntactic typology (Typological Studies in Language 17), 147–169. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.17.12kim
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.17.12kim [Google Scholar]
  25. Koškarëva, Natalja B.
    2005Očerki po sintaksisu lesnogo dialekta neneckogo jazyka. [Sketches of the syntax of the Forest dialect of the Nenets language]. Novosibirsk: Rossijskaja Akademija Nauk, Sibirskoe Otdelenie.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Krifka, Manfred
    2008 Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica55. 243–276. 10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3‑4.2
    https://doi.org/10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3-4.2 [Google Scholar]
  27. Krifka, Manfred & Renate Musan
    2012 Information structure: Overview and linguistic issues. InManfred Krifka & Renate Musan (eds.), The expression of information structure (The expression of cognitive categories 5), 1–43. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110261608.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261608.1 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kudrinskij, Maksim I., Darja P. Popova & Aleksandra P. Simonenko
    2014 Fokusnye časticy v kazymskom dialekte chatyjskogo jazyka: analiz priimennych upotreblenij. [Focus particles in the Kazym dialect of the Khanty language: An analysis of the adnominal usages]. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana10(1). 781–786.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Kuno, Susumu
    1969 Theme, contrast, and exhaustive listing – wa and ga in Japanese. The Bulletin of the Institute for Research in Language Teaching289. 19–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 1972 Functional sentence perspective: A case study from Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry3(3). 269–320.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 1973The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Lakoff, George
    1982Categories and cognitive models. Trier: Linguistic Agency of the University of Trier.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Lambrecht, Knud
    1994Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representation of discourse referents (Cambridge studies in linguistics 71). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  34. Lyons, Christopher
    1999Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511605789
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605789 [Google Scholar]
  35. Malčukov, Andrej
    2008Sintaksis evenskogo jazyka: semantičeskie, strukturnye, kommunikativnye aspekty [Syntax of Even: functional, structural, discourse aspects]. Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Matić, Dejan & Daniel Wedgwood
    2013 The meanings of focus: The significance of an interpretation-based category in cross-linguistic analysis. Journal of Linguistics49. 127–163. 10.1017/S0022226712000345
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226712000345 [Google Scholar]
  37. Molnár, Valéria
    1991Das TOPIK im Deutschen und Ungarischen (Lunder germanistische Forschungen 58). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Muysken, Pieter
    1995 Focus in Quechua. InKatalin É. Kiss (ed.), Discourse configurational languages (Oxford studies in comparative syntax), 375–393. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Nedjalkov, Igor
    1997Evenki. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Nikolaeva, Irina
    1999Ostyak (Languages of the World/Materials 305). München: LINCOM Europa.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 2003 Possessive affixes in the pragmatic structuring of the utterance: Evidence from Uralic. InPirkko Suihkonen & Bernard Comrie (eds.), International symposium on deictic systems and quantification in languages spoken in Europe and North and Central Asia, 130–145. Izhevsk & Leipzig: Udmurt State University & Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 2014A grammar of Tundra Nenets (Mouton Grammar Library 65). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110320640
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110320640 [Google Scholar]
  43. Nikolaeva, Irina, Edward Garrett & Oliver Bond
    2019Endangered languages and cultures of Siberia. https://www.siberianlanguages.surrey.ac.uk (last access12 January 2022).
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Nissim, Malvina & Shipra Dingare, Jean Carletta & Mark Steedmann
    2004 An annotation scheme for information status in dialogue. InMaria Teresa Lino, Maria Francisca Xavier, Fátima Ferreira & Rute Costa & Raquel Silva (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC), 1023–1026. Paris: ELRA.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Ozerov, Pavel
    2019 Tracing the source of information structure: Towards the study of interactional management of information. Journal of Pragmatics138. 77–97. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.08.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.08.017 [Google Scholar]
  46. 2021 Multifactoral Information Management (MIM): Summing up the emerging alternative to information structure. Linguistics Vanguard7(1). 20200039. 10.1515/lingvan‑2020‑0039
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2020-0039 [Google Scholar]
  47. Paul, Hermann
    1920 [1880]Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. 5th edn. Halle: Niemeyer.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Plank, Frans
    1983 Transparent versus functional encoding of grammatical relations. Linguistische Berichte86. 1–13.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Rudnickaja, Elena L.
    2018 Delimitativnyj affiks riktV i fokusnaja častica (h)ələ v evenkijskom jazyke kak veršiny dvuch raznych proekcij DelimP i FocP. [The delimitative affix -riktV- and the focus particle (h)ələ in the Evenki language as heads of the two different projections DelimP and FocP]. InEkaterina A. Ljutikova & Anton V. Zimmerlinh (eds.), Tipologija morfosintaksičeskich parametrov. Materialy meždunarodnoj konferencii. [Typology of morphosyntactic parameters. Materials of the international conference], Vol.4, 209–221. Moskva: Gosudarstvennyj institut russkogo jazyka im. A.S. Puškina.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Schurz, Gerhard
    2020Logik. Grund- und Aufbaukurs in Aussagen- und Prädikatenlogik. 2nd edn. (De Gruyter Studium). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110697391
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110697391 [Google Scholar]
  51. Siegl, Florian
    2013Materials on Forest Enets, an indigenous language of Northern Siberia (Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 267). Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 2015 The non-possessive use of px.2p in Nganasan and Dolgan. Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen39. 67–100.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Smith, Edward E. & Douglas L. Medin
    1981Categories and concepts. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 10.4159/harvard.9780674866270
    https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674866270 [Google Scholar]
  54. Steinitz, Wolfgang
    1950Ostjakische Grammatik und Chrestomathie: mit Wörterverzeichnis. 2nd edn.Leipzig: Harrassowitz.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Taylor, John
    1995 [1952]Linguistic categorization – Prototypes in linguistic theory. 2nd edn.Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Van der Auwera, Johan & Volker Gast
    2012 Categories and prototypes. InJae J. Song (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology. Online edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199281251.013.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199281251.013.0010 [Google Scholar]
  57. Vasilevič, Glafira M.
    1958Evenkijsko-russkij slovar’. [Evenki-Russian dictionary]. Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo inostrannych i nacional’nych slovarej.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Wagner-Nagy, Beáta
    2019A grammar of Nganasan. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Wagner-Nagy, Beáta, Sándor Szeverényi & Valentin Gusev
    2018User’s guide to Nganasan Spoken Language Corpus (Working Papers in Corpus Linguistics and Digital Technologies: Analyses and Methodology 1). Szeged, Hamburg: Universität Szeged, Universität Hamburg. 10.14232/wpcl.2018.1
    https://doi.org/10.14232/wpcl.2018.1 [Google Scholar]
  60. Weil, Henry
    1869 [1844]De l’ordre des dans les langues anciennes comparées aux langues modernes. 2nd edn.Paris: Vieweg.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Wiedemann, Ferdinand Johann
    1847Versuch einer Grammatik der syrjänischen Sprache. Reval: Franz Kluge.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Zayzon, Réka
    2015 Observations on non-possessive usages of personal markers (possessive suffixes) in Nganasan. Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics6. 259–278. 10.12697/jeful.2015.6.2.11
    https://doi.org/10.12697/jeful.2015.6.2.11 [Google Scholar]
  63. Zybatow, Gerhild & Uwe Junghanns
    1998Topiks im Russischen (Sprache & Pragmatik 47). Lund: Germanistisches Institut der Universität Lund.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/sl.21043.dab
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.21043.dab
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: Siberian languages ; topic marker ; information structure ; focus marker ; information status
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error