Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:15:39.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Information structure, (inter)subjectivity and objectification1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 December 2014

Jenneke van der Wal
Jenneke van der Wal*
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
*
Author's address: Faculty of Modern and Medieval Languages, University of Cambridge, Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9DA, UKjennekevanderwal@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper discusses how information structure can be seen as a subjective and intersubjective concept in Verhagen's (2005) and Breban's (2010) definitions, though less so in Traugott's (2010) use of the terms. More difficult is the question of whether markers of information structure can be characterised as (inter)subjective; this is more easily determined for morphological markers than for prosody or word order. For unambiguous markers of information structure, I suggest that their emergence (e.g. copula > focus marker) is typically accompanied by (inter)subjectification, whereas their further development (e.g. topic marker > subject marker) displays objectification. The paper not only shows that grammatical items can undergo an increase as well as a decrease in (inter)subjectivity – thus denying strict unidirectionality – but also confirms that these processes are independent of grammaticalisation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , July 2015 , pp. 425 - 464
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[1]

This paper is part of the research project Grammaticalization and (Inter)subjectification (GRAMIS), funded by the Belgian Science Policy. I wish to thank three anonymous Journal of Linguistics referees, and Kristin Davidse, David Willis, Tine Breban, Freek van de Velde, Arie Verhagen, and specifically Heiko Narrog and Steve Nicolle for discussion of and input into this paper, although the views expressed here do not necessarily match theirs, and any errors remain my own.

References

REFERENCES

Abels, Klaus & Muriungi, Peter. 2008. The focus marker in Kîîtharaka: Syntax and semantics. Lingua 118, 687–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aboh, Enoch O., Hartmann, Katharina & Zimmermann, Malte (eds.). 2007. Focus strategies in African languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2010. Imperatives and commands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ameka, Felix K. 1991. How discourse particles mean: The case of the Ewe ‘terminal’ particles. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 12, 143–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ameka, Felix K. 2010. Information packaging constructions in Kwa: Micro-variation and typology. In Aboh, Enoch O. & Essegbey, James (eds.), Topics in Kwa syntax, 141–176. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 2008. Pragmatics and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaver, David & Clark, Brady. 2008. Sense and sensitivity. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, Tina L. 1977. Interrogatives. In Byarushengo, Ernest R., Duranti, Alessandro & Hyman, Larry M. (eds.), Haya grammatical structure (Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics 6), 171–188. Los Angeles, CA: Deparment of Linguistics, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Bergvall, Victoria L. 1987. Focus in Kikuyu and universal grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Breban, Tine. 2010. English adjectives of comparison: Lexical and grammaticalized uses. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1998. ‘The flowers are lovely; only, they have no scent’: The evolution of a pragmatic marker. In Borgmeier, Raimund, Grabes, Herbert & Jucker, Anderas H. (eds.), Historical pragmatics: Anglistentag 1997 Giessen Proceedings, 9–33. Giessen: WVT Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2005. Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brody, Jill. 1984. Some problems with the concept of basic word order. Linguistics 22.5, 711–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brody, Michael. 1995. Focus and Checking Theory. In Istvan Kenesei (ed.), Approaches to Hungarian V: Levels and structures, 29–43. Szeged: Jate.Google Scholar
Buell, Leston. 2009. Evaluating the immediate postverbal position as a focus position in Zulu. In Matondo, Masangu, Laughlin, Fiona Mc & Potsdam, Eric (eds.), 38th Annual Conference on African Linguistics: Linguistic Theory and African Language Documentation, 166–172. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Buell, Leston. 2011. Zulu ngani ‘why’: Postverbal and yet in CP. Lingua 121.5, 805–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 1997. The meaning of topic and focus: The 59th Street Bridge accent. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2003. On D-trees, beans and B-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy 26, 511–545.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Li (ed.), 25–55.Google Scholar
Cheng, Lisa L.-S. & Downing, Laura J.. 2009. Where's the topic in Zulu?The Linguistic Review 26, 207–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, Lisa L.-S. & Downing, Laura J.. 2012. Against FocusP: Arguments from Zulu. In Ivona Kucerova & Ad Neeleman (eds.), Information structure: Contrasts and positions, 247–266. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Culbertson, Jennifer. 2010. Convergent evidence for categorial change in French: From subject clitic to agreement marker. Language 85, 85–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czypionka, Anna. 2007. Word order and focus position in the world's languages. Linguistische Berichte 212, 439–455.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2001. Grammaticalization and the life cycles of constructions. RASK 14, 91–133.Google Scholar
Dakubu, Mary E. K. 2005. The syntax of focus in Ga and Akan and the significance of related constructions. Presented at the conference Focus in African Languages, Humboldt University, Berlin.Google Scholar
Davidse, Kristin, Vandelanotte, Lieven & Cuyckens, Hubert. 2010. Introduction. In Davidse, Kristin, Vandelanotte, Lieven & Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization, 1–26. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik & Verstraete, Jean-Cristophe. 2006. Coming to terms with subjectivity. Cognitive Linguistics 17.3, 365–392.Google Scholar
Detges, Ulrich & Waltereit, Richard. 2002. Grammaticalization vs. reanalysis: A semantic-pragmatic account of functional change in grammar. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 21, 151–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diercks, Michael. 2011. The morphosyntax of Lubukusu locative inversion and the parametrization of Agree. Lingua 121.5, 702–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1997. The theory of functional grammar, Part 1: The structure of the clause (edited by Hengeveld, Kees). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Downing, Laura J., Mtenje, Al & Pompino-Marschall, Bernd. 2004. Prosody and information structure in Chichewa. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 37, 167–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downing, Laura J. & Pompino-Marschall, Bernd. 2013. The focus prosody of Chichewa and the stress-focus constraint: A response to Samek-Lodovici (2005). Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 31.3, 647–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew. 2007. Word order. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 1, 61–131. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 2006. Focussing as predication. In Molnár, & Winkler, (eds.), 169–193.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline. 2007. The prosody of topicalization. In Schwabe, & Winkler, (eds.), 69–86.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline. 2008. Information structural notions and the fallacy of invariant grammatical correlates. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55.3–4, 361–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Féry, Caroline. 2013. Focus as prosodic alignment. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 31, 683–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foley, William A. 1994. Information structure. In Asher, R. E. (ed.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 1678–1687. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara. 1999. The prosody of focus in Italian. Probus 11.2, 209–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1999. What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 31, 931–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, Isaac. 1971. The á-construction in Nupe: Perfective, stative, causative, or instrumental?Chin-Wu, In Kim & Stahlke, Herbert (eds.), Papers in African Linguistics, 81–100. Edmonton: Linguistic Research, Inc.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1976. Topic, pronoun, and grammatical agreement. In Li, (ed.), 149–188.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1991. The evolution of dependent clause morpho-syntax in Biblical Hebrew. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Heine, Bernd (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. II, 257–310. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 2001. Syntax, vol. I.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Güldemann, Tom. 2003. Present progressive vis-à-vis predication focus in Bantu: A verbal category between semantics and pragmatics. Studies in Language 27.2, 323–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Güldemann, Tom. 2007. Preverbal objects and information structure in Benue-Congo. In Aboh, et al. (eds.), 83–111.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette. 1988. Universals of topic–comment structure. In Hammond, Michael, Moravcsik, Edith A. & Wirth, J. R. (eds.), Studies in syntactic typology, 209–242. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Günthner, Susanne & Mutz, Katrin. 2004. Grammaticalization vs. pragmaticalization? The development of pragmatic markers in German and Italian. In Bisang, Walter, Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. & Wiemer, Björn (eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components, 77–107. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English, part 2. Journal of Linguistics 3, 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice C. & Campbell, Lyle. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1986. Bemerkungen zur Entwicklung der Verbaljunkturen im Kxoe und anderen Zentralkhoisan-Sprachen. In Vossen, Rainer & Keuthmann, Klaus (eds.), Contemporary studies on Khoisan 2: In honour of Oswin Köhler on the occasion of his 75th birthday, 9–21. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike & Hünnemeyer, Friederike. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Reh, Mechtild. 1983. Diachronic observations on completive focus marking in some African languages. Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika 5, 7–44.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Reh, Mechtild. 1984. Grammaticalization and reanalysis in African languages. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.Google Scholar
Heltoft, Lars. 1996. Paradigmatic structure, word order and grammaticalization. In Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth, Fortescue, Michael, Harder, Peter, Heltoft, Lars & Jakobsen, Lisbeth Falster (eds.), Content, expression, and structure: Studies in Danish functional grammar, 469–494. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. 1999. The interaction between focus and tone in Bantu. In Rebuschi, Georges & Tuller, Laurice (eds.), The grammar of focus, 151–178. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. & Watters, John. 1984. Auxiliary focus. Studies in African Linguistics 15.3, 233–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanerva, Jonni M. 1990. Focus and phrasing in Chichewa phonology. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Kenesei, Istvan. 2006. Focus as identification. In Molnár, & Winkler, (eds.), 137–168.Google Scholar
Kim, Ilkyu. 2012. Korean -(n)un, -i/ka, and information structure. Presented at workshop Categories of Information Structure, MPI Nijmegen.Google Scholar
König, Christa. 2008. Case in Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koops, Christian & Hilpert, Martin. 2009. The co-evolution of syntactic and pragmatic complexity: Diachronic and cross-linguistic aspects of pseudoclefts. In Gívon, Talmy & Shibatani, Masayoshi (eds.), Syntactic complexity: Diachrony, acquisition, neuro-cognition, evolution, 215–238. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kranich, Svenja. 2010. Grammaticalization, subjectification and objectification. In Stathi, Katerina, Gehweiler, Elke & König, Ekkehard (eds.), Grammaticalization: Current views and issues, 101–122. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2006. Association with focus phrases. In Molnár, & Winkler, (eds.), 105–136.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2007. Basic notions of information structure. In Féry, Caroline, Fanselow, Gisbert & Krifka, Manfred (eds.), Interdisciplinary studies on information structure (ISIS) (Working Papers of the SFB 632), 13–55. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred & Musan, Renate. 2012. Information structure: Overview and linguistic issues. In Krifka, Manfred & Musan, Renate (eds.), The expression of information structure, 1–44. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1975 [1965]. The evolution of grammatical categories. In Kuryłowicz, Jerzy (ed.), Esquisses linguistiques II, 34–58. Munich: Wilhelm Fink.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1990. Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics 1.1, 5–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Chungmin. 2003. Contrastive topic and proposition structure. In Di Sciullo, Anna Maria (ed.), Asymmetry in grammar, 345–372. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1995. Thoughts on grammaticalization. Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2008. Information structure and grammaticalisation. In Seoane, Elena & Lopez-Couso, Maria José (eds.), Theoretical and empirical issues in grammaticalization, 207–230. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Li, Charles (ed.). 1976. Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N. & Thompson, Sandra A.. 1976. Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In Li, (ed.), 457–490.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1982. Deixis and subjectivity: Loquor, ergo sum? In Jarvella, Robert J. & Klein, Wolfgang (eds.), Speech, place, and action: Studies in deixis and related topics, 101–124. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Matić, Dejan & Wedgwood, Daniel. 2012. The meanings of focus: The significance of an interpretation-based category in cross-linguistic analysis. Journal of Linguistics 49.1, 127–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1987. Is basic word order universal? In Tomlin, Russell S. (ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse, 281–328. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molnár, Valeria. 2002. Contrast – from a contrastive perspective. In Hasselgård, Hilde, Johansson, Stig, Behrens, Bergljot & Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine (eds.), Information structure in a cross-linguistic perspective, 147–162. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molnár, Valeria & Winkler, Susanne (eds.). 2006. The architecture of focus. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yukiko, Morimoto. 2006. Agreement properties and word order in comparative Bantu. In Downing, Laura J., Zerbian, Sabine & Marten, Lutz (eds.), Papers in Bantu grammar and description (ZAS Papers in Linguistics 43), 161–187. Berlin: ZAS.Google Scholar
Morimoto, Yukiko. 2009. From topic to subject marking: Implications for a typology of subject marking. In de Hoop, Helen & de Swart, Peter (eds.), Differential subject marking, 199–221. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, Ad, Titov, Elena, van de Koot, Hans & Vermeulen, Reiko. 2009. A syntactic typology of topic, focus and contrast. In van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen (ed.), Alternatives to cartography, 15–52. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, Ad & Vermeulen, Reiko. 2012. The syntax of topic, focus and contrast. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norde, Muriel. 2009. Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norde, Muriel. 2012. (De)grammaticalization and (de)subjectification. In van der Auwera, Johan & Nuyts, Jan (eds.), Grammaticalization and (inter)subjectification, 37–64. Brussel: Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van België voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan. 2001. Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patten, Amanda L. 2010. Grammaticalization and the it-cleft construction. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme (eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization, 221–244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patten, Amanda L. 2012. The English IT-cleft: A constructional account and a diachronic investigation. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prévost, Sophie. 2008. Quant à X et à propos de X du XIVe au XVIe siècle: émergence de deux marqueurs de topicalisation. L'information grammaticale 118, 38–43.Google Scholar
Radetzky, Paula. 2002. The functions and evolution of toic and focus markers. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27, 53–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Repp, Sophie. 2010. Defining ‘contrast’ as an information-structural notion in grammar. Lingua 120, 1333–1345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, Liliane (ed.), Elements of grammar, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robert, Stéphane. 2000. Le verbe wolof ou la grammaticalisation du focus. In Caron, Bernard (ed.), Topicalisation et focalisation dans les langues africaines, 229–267. Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 1996. Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In Yoon, Jae-Hak & Kathol, Andreas (eds.), The Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 49.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1.1, 75–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1996. Focus. In Shalom Lappin (ed.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, 271–297. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Savà, Graziano. 2005. A grammar of Ts‘amakko. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Schwabe, Kerstin & Winkler, Susanne (eds.). 2007. On information structure, meaning and form. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, Florian. 2007. Ex-situ focus in Kikuyu. In Aboh, et al. (eds.), 139–160.Google Scholar
Seidl, Amanda. 2001. Minimal indirect reference: A theory of the syntax–phonology interface. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1986. On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3, 371–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 2008. Contrastive focus, givenness and phrase stress. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55, 331–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strawson, Peter F. 1964. Identifying reference and truth values. Theoria 30, 96–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Talbot J. & Cameron, Deborah. 1987. Analyzing conversations. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Tosco, Mauro. 1994. On case marking in the Ethiopian language area (with special reference to subject marking in East Cushitic). In Brugnatelli, Vermondo (ed.), Sem, Cam, Iafet, 225–244. Milan: Centro Studi Camito-Semitici.Google Scholar
Tosco, Mauro. 2010. Why contrast matters: Information structure in Gawwada (East Cushitic). In Fiedler, Ines & Schwarz, Anne (eds.), The expression of information structure, 315–348. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1982. From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: Some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Lehmann, Winfred P. & Malkiel, Yakov (eds.), Perspectives on historical linguistics, 245–271. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1988. Pragmatic strengthening and grammaticalization. The Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society (BLS14), 406–416.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1995. Subjectification in grammaticalization. In Stein, Dieter & Wright, Susan (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation, 37–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2002. From etymology to historical pragmatics. In Minkova, Donka & Stockwell, Robert (eds.), Studies in the history of the English language: A millenial perspective, 19–49. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. From subjectification to intersubjectification. In Hickey, Raymond (ed.), Motives for language change, 124–139. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2010. (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In Davidse, et al. (eds.), 29–74.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Dasher, Richard B.. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1999. On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic Inquiry 30, 219–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallduví, Enric. 1992. The informational component. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Vallduví, Enric & Vilkuna, Maria. 1998. On rheme and kontrast. In Culicover, Peter W. & McNally, Louise (eds.), The limits of syntax, 79–106. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Wal, Jenneke. 2009. Word order and information structure in Makhuwa-Enahara. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Van der Wal, Jenneke. 2011. Focus excluding alternatives: Conjoint/disjoint marking in Makhuwa. Lingua 121.11, 1734–1750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Wal, Jenneke. 2012. Subject agreement and the EPP in Bantu agreeing inversion. Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 6, 201–236.Google Scholar
Van der Wal, Jenneke & Maniacky, Jacky. To appear. How ‘person’ got into focus: Grammaticalisation of clefts in Lingala and Kikongo areas. Linguistics.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1974. Topics, subjects, and word order: From SXV to SVX via TVX. In Anderson, John & Jones, Charles (eds.), Historical linguistics: Proceedings of the First International Congress of Historical Linguistics, Edinburgh, September 1973, vol. II, 339–376. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Verhagen, Arie. 2005. Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax, and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vermeulen, Reiko. 2012. Word order variation and information structure. In Neeleman, Ad & Vermeulen, Reiko (eds.), The syntax of topic, focus and contrast, 77–118. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visconti, Jacqueline. 2013. Facets of subjectification. Language Sciences 36, 7–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wakefield, John. 2010. The English equivalents of Cantonese sentence-final particles. Ph.D. dissertation, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.Google Scholar
Watters, John. 1979. Focus in Aghem. In Hyman, Larry (ed.), Aghem grammatical structure, 157–189. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Wedgwood, Daniel. 2007. Identifying inferences in focus. In Schwabe, & Winkler, (eds.), 207–228.Google Scholar
Wedgwood, Daniel. 2009. On the unstable grounding of focus as a grammatical category. Handout from a talk presented at the workshop Focus and Focus Marking at the yearly meeting of the DGfS, 4–6 March, Osnabrück.Google Scholar
Yoneda, Nobuko. 2011. Word order in Matengo (N13): Topicality and informational roles. Lingua 12.5, 754–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zerbian, Sabine. 2006. Expression of information structure in Northern Sotho. Ph.D. dissertation, Humboldt University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte. 2008. Contrastive focus and emphasis. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55.3–4, 347–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte & Onea, Edgar. 2011. Focus marking and focus interpretation. Lingua 121.11, 1651–1670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 1994. The syntax of nominative clitics in Standard and Advanced French. In Cinque, Guglielmo, Koster, Jan, Pollock, Jean-Yves, Rizzi, Luigi & Zanuttini, Raffaella (eds.), Paths towards universal grammar (Georgetown Studies in Romance Linguistics), 453–472. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar