Advertisement

Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 301–318 | Cite as

Information Structure in Subordinate and Subordinate-Like Clauses

  • Nobo Komagata
Article

Abstract

While information structure has traditionally been viewed as a singlepartition of information within an utterance, there are opposing viewsthat identify multiple such partitions in an utterance. The existenceof alternative proposals raises questions about the notion ofinformation structure and also its relation to discoursestructure. Exploring various linguistic aspects, this paper supports thetraditional view by arguing that there is no information structure partition within a subordinate clause.

discourse structure information structure subordinate clause theme/rheme topic/focus utterance 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., and Finegan, E., 1999, Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English, Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  2. Borschev, V. and B. H. Partee, B.H., 2001, “The Russian genitive of negation in existential sentences: The role of Theme-Rheme structure reconsidered,” pp. 185–250 in Travaux de Cercle Linguistique de Prague, Vol. 4, E. Hajičová, P. Sgall, J. Hana, and T. Hoskovec, eds., Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  3. Collins, P.C., 1991, Cleft and Pseudo-Cleft Constructions in English, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Daneš, F., 1974, “Functional sentence perspective and the organization of the text,”pp. 106–128 in Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective, F. Daneš, ed., Prague: Academia and The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  5. de Swart, H., 1999, “Position and meaning: Time adverbials in context,” pp. 336–361 in Focus: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Computational Perspectives, P. Bosch and R.A. van der Sandt, eds., Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  6. Delin, J., 1995, “Presupposition and shared knowledge in it-clefts,” Language and Cognitive Process 10, 97–120.Google Scholar
  7. Erteschik-Shir, N., 1998, “The syntax-focus structure interface,” pp. 211–240 in Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 29: The Limits of Syntax, P.W. Culicover and L. McNally, eds., New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  8. Firbas, J., 1964, “On defining the theme in functional sentence analysis,” Travaux Linguistiques de Prague 1, 267–280.Google Scholar
  9. Grosz, B.J. and Sidner, C.L., 1986, “Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse,” Computational Linguistics 12, 175–204.Google Scholar
  10. Günthner, S., 1996, “From subordination to coordination? Verb-second position in German causal and concessive constructions,” Pragmatics 6, 323–356.Google Scholar
  11. Hajičová, E., 1984, “Presupposition and allegation revisited,” Journal of Pragmatics 8, 155–167.Google Scholar
  12. Hajičová, E., Partee, B.H., and Sgall, P., 1998, Topic-Focus Articulation, Tripart Structures, and Semantic Content, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Hajičová, E., Skoumalová, H., and Sgall, P., 1995, “An automatic procedure for topic-focus identification,” Computational Linguistics 21, 81–94.Google Scholar
  14. Halliday, M.A.K., 1967, “Notes on transitivity and theme in English (Part II),” Journal of Linguistics 3, 199–244.Google Scholar
  15. Heim, I., 1982, “The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  16. Hoffman, B., 1995, “The computational analysis of the syntax and interpretation of 'free' word order in Turkish,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  17. Komagata, N., 2001, “Entangled information structure: Analysis of complex sentence structures,” pp. 53–66 in Proceedings of ESSLLI 2001 Workshop on Information Structure, Discourse Structure and Discourse Semantics, I. Kruijff-Korbayová and M. Steedman, eds., Helsinki: ESSLLI.Google Scholar
  18. Komagata, N.N., 1999, “A computational analysis of information structure using parallel expository texts in English and Japanese,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  19. Kruijff-Korbayová, I. and Webber, B.L., 2001a, “Concession, implicature and alternative sets,” pp. 227–248 in Proceedings of the International Workshop on Computational Semantics (IWCS-4), Tilburg, January 2001, H. Bunt, I. van der Sluis, and E. Thijsse, eds., Tilburg: Tilburg University.Google Scholar
  20. Kruijff-Korbayová, I. and Webber, B.L., 2001b, “Information structure and the semantics of 'otherwise',” pp. 67–83 in Proceedings of ESSLLI 2001 Workshop on Information Structure, Discourse Structure and Discourse Semantics, I. Kruijff-Korbayová and M. Steedman, eds., Helsinki: ESSLLI.Google Scholar
  21. Kuno, S., 1973, The Structure of the Japanese Language, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Lambrecht, K., 1994, Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Laver, J., 1994, Principles of Phonetics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Levinson, S.C., 1983, Pragmatics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Mann, W. and Thompson, S., 1988, “Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization,” Text 8, 243–281.Google Scholar
  26. Mathesius, V., 1975, A Functional Analysis of Present Day English on a General Linguistic Basis, edited by Josef Vachek, The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  27. Noda, H., 1996, WA-to GA (WA and GA), Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.Google Scholar
  28. Partee, B.H., 1996, “Allegation and local accommodation,” pp. 65–86 in Discourse and meaning: Papers in Honor of Eva Hajičová, B.H. Partee and P. Sgall, eds., Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  29. Prevost, S., 1995, “A semantics of contrast and information structure for specifying intonation in spoken language generation,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  30. Prince, E.F., 1978, “A comparison of wh-clefts and it-clefts in Discourse,” Language 54, 883–906.Google Scholar
  31. Prince, E.F., 1984, “Topicalization and left-dislocation: A functional analysis,” pp. 213–225 in Annals of New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 433: Discourses in Reading and Linguistics, S.J. White and V. Teller, eds., New York: The New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  32. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., and Svartvik, J., 1985, A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, London: Longman.Google Scholar
  33. Ramsay, V., 1987, “The functional distribution of preposed and postposed 'if' and 'when' clauses in written discourse,” in Coherence and Grounding in Discourse, R.S. Tomlin, ed., Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  34. Rooth, M.E., 1985, “Association with focus,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  35. Sgall, P., Hajičová, E., and Panevova, J., 1986, The Meaning of the Sentence in Its Semantic and Pragmatic Aspects, Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  36. Steedman, M., 2000, “Information structure and the syntax-phonology interface,” Linguistic Inquiry 31, 649–689.Google Scholar
  37. Vallduví, E., 1990, “The informational component,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  38. Vallduví, E., 2001, “Fragments in information packaging,” pp. 15–16 in Proceedings of ESSLLI 2001 Workshop on Information Structure, Discourse Structure and Discourse Semantics, I. Kruijff-Korbayová and M. Steedman, eds., Helsinki: ESSLLI.Google Scholar
  39. Vallduví, E. and Zacharski, R., 1993, “Accenting phenomena, association with focus, and the recursiveness of focus-ground,” pp. 683–702 in Proceedings of the Ninth Amsterdam Colloquium, P. Dekker and M. Stokhof, eds., Amsterdam: ILLC/University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  40. Webber, B., 1991, “Structure and ostension in the interpretation of discourse deixis,” Natural Language and Cognitive Process 6, 107–135.Google Scholar
  41. Webber, B.L. and Joshi, A.K., 1998, “Anchoring a lexicalized tree-adjoining grammar for discourse,” pp. 86–92 in Proceedings of the Worskshop on Discourse Relations and Discourse Markers (COLING-ACL 98), M. Stede, L.Wanner, and E. Hovy, eds., Montreal: ACL.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nobo Komagata
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceThe College of New JerseyEwingU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations