DOCSLIB.ORG

UC Santa Cruz UC Santa Cruz Electronic Theses and Dissertations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
UC Santa Cruz UC Santa Cruz Electronic Theses and Dissertations UC Santa Cruz UC Santa Cruz Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Syntax & Information Structure: The Grammar of English Inversions Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2sv7q1pm Author Samko, Bern Publication Date 2016 License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 4.0 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ SYNTAX & INFORMATION STRUCTURE: THE GRAMMAR OF ENGLISH INVERSIONS A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in LINGUISTICS by Bern Samko June 2016 The Dissertation of Bern Samko is approved: Professor Jim McCloskey, chair Associate Professor Pranav Anand Associate Professor Line Mikkelsen Assistant Professor Maziar Toosarvandani Tyrus Miller Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies Copyright © by Bern Samko 2016 Contents Acknowledgments x 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Thequestions ............................... 1 1.1.1 Summaryofresults ........................ 2 1.2 Syntax................................... 6 1.3 InformationStructure . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7 1.3.1 Topic ............................... 8 1.3.2 Focus ............................... 11 1.3.3 Givenness............................. 13 1.3.4 The distinctness of information structural notions . ....... 14 1.3.5 TheQUD ............................. 17 1.4 The relationship between syntax and information structure ....... 19 1.5 Thephenomena .............................. 25 1.5.1 ParticiplePreposing. 25 1.5.2 VPpreposing ........................... 30 1.6 Themethodology ............................. 37 2 Participle preposing 39 2.1 Introduction ................................ 39 iii 2.2 Comparisontootherphenomena . 41 2.2.1 Locativeinversion. 41 2.2.2 Sententialsubjects . 44 2.3 Aminimalistanalysisofparticiplepreposing . ...... 46 2.3.1 Syntacticpropertiesofparticiplepreposing . ..... 46 2.3.2 Thederivationofparticiplepreposing . .. 54 2.4 Featuralmotivationforparticiplepreposing . ....... 60 2.4.1 Discoursepropertiesofparticiplepreposing . ..... 60 2.4.2 Marking topics in participle preposing: Evidence from a corpus study ............................... 61 2.4.3 Implementation .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 64 2.5 Predictions................................. 68 2.5.1 Whichphrasescanandcannotmove . 68 2.5.2 Be versus have .......................... 70 2.6 Conclusion: Movementandinformationstructure . ...... 72 2.6.1 The content of the FAM feature.................. 73 2.6.2 Thetypologyofinversion. 74 3 VPP and verum focus 76 3.1 Introduction ................................ 76 3.2 ThesyntaxofVPP ............................ 79 3.2.1 Previousapproaches . 85 3.3 AntecedenceconditiononVPP . 92 3.3.1 Theroleoftopicality . 94 3.4 (Verum)focusmarking . .104 3.4.1 What is verumfocus?. .. .. .. .. .. .. .105 iv 3.4.2 Historicalbackground . .106 3.4.3 Implementing verum focus in alternative semantics . .118 3.4.4 VPPexpressesVF . .129 3.4.5 ImplementingVFinVPP. .133 3.4.6 Against prosodic and pragmatic accounts of verum focus . .139 3.5 Summary .................................141 4 The pragmatics of VPP 143 4.1 Introduction ................................143 4.2 Theantecedencerequirementrevisited . .144 4.3 TheQUD .................................148 4.3.1 AccommodatinganimplicitQUD . .153 4.3.2 Areturntod-trees. .159 4.4 Theemphaticinterpretation. 161 4.4.1 The emphatic interpretation is not part of the at-issuemeaning . 167 4.5 Theroleofintonation . .171 4.6 Conclusion ................................176 4.A The information structure of postverbal material . ........177 4.A.1 Corpusexampleswithpostverbalmaterial . 179 5 Derivational mechanisms 187 5.1 Participlepreposing . .187 5.2 VPP ....................................188 5.3 ParticiplepreposingandVPpreposingcompared . .198 5.4 The syntactic representation of information structure ..........201 6 Conclusion 205 v 6.1 Openquestions ..............................205 6.2 Thebroadview ..............................206 References 208 vi Abstract Bern Samko Syntax & Information Structure: The Grammar of English Inversions This dissertation examines the relationship between form and function in VP-initial word orders in English. While the questions at its core are old (questions of the inter- action between syntactic form and discourse context), they are addressed here with the aid of tools only recently made available. Those tools are in the first place theoretical— the Minimalist framework for syntax and a Question Under Discussion framework for formal pragmatics, but in the second place also methodological. The ability to search large electronic corpora for naturally produced data in full discourse context massively expands our ability to explore subtle interactions between syntactic form and discourse context. The goal of this dissertation is to exploit these new opportunities and in so doing to combine a technically sophisticated syntax with an equally sophisticated prag- matics in a way that gives serious consideration to both components of the grammar and, especially, to the often subtle ways in which they interact. The empirical focus is on Participle Preposing, as in (0.1a), and on VP Preposing, as in (0.1b): (0.1) a. Topping the list for least affordable communities were Laredo, San Fran- cisco and Manhattan. b. ...but criticize him they did. Much existing work on these constructions incorporates a more or less sophisti- cated elaboration of the Minimalist model of syntax, but is largely silent on the impor- tant question of what effect such complex syntactic mechanisms have on an unfolding discourse. The analyses developrd here aim to be serious about the syntax, but equally serious about developing a pragmatic (and semantic) analysis that is not tailored to the problem at hand but that rather has some independent grounding. The analysis is in turn built on a close examination of patterns which are instantiated across hundreds of vii inversions in hundreds of contexts. The combined approach leads to several important insights into the relationship between syntax and pragmatics and the overall picture that emerges is one in which the syntax makes both direct and indirect reference to discourse context. viii For Phil, who might have read this ix Acknowledgments This dissertation didn’t write itself. I may have been responsible for putting the words on the page, but the ideas those words convey and the order in which they appear owe a substantial debt to the linguistics community I’ve been fortunate to be a part of for the past seven years. My advisor, Jim McCloskey, exhibited remarkable patience and support as I came to the slow realization that I was not writing a syntax dissertation after all. His comments and professional guidance remained invaluable, even when he didn’t share my judgments. The other members of my committee—Pranav Anand, Line Mikkelsen, and Maziar Toosarvandani—provided substantial feedback and asked probing questions. The lively discussions that ensued when they found themselves in the same room were a major source of inspiration. While Amy Rose Deal was not officially a member of my dissertation committee, her perceptive influence can be seen in Chapter 2 of the current work. More generally, the linguistics community at UCSC has been more welcoming than I could have dreamed when I arrived. A number of faculty members and grad students supported me and my work as I abandoned my initial dreams of being a morpholo- gist, spent a year working on theoretical phonology, and stumbled through syntax on my way to information structure and pragmatics. Judith Aissen, Adrian Brasoveanu, Sandy Chung, Donka Farkas, Jorge Hankamer, Junko Itô, Armin Mester, Jaye Pad- gett, Nate Arnett, Karl DeVries, Boris Harizanov, Mark Norris, Oliver Northrup, Deniz x Rudin, and Anie Thompson all influenced me and my work (probably more than they know). I’m also indebted to the community of grad students who shared their work and their space with me: Jeff Adler, Scott AnderBois, Jenny Bellik, Ryan Bennett, Nate Clair, Karen Duek, Judith Fiedler, Steven Foley, Nick Kalivoda, Kelsey Kraus, Margaret Kroll, Filippa Lindahl, Lauren McGarry, Ben Meriçli, Chelsea Miller, Maho Morimoto, Kelsey Sasaki, Clara Sherley-Appel, Tom Roberts, Paul Willis, and Erik Zyman. The year I spent with the SFB 632 at Universität Potsdam was deeply formative for my outlook on information structure and on life. I’m grateful to Gisbert Fanselow, Luis Vicente, Malte Zimmermann, Jana Häussler, Júlia Bácskai-Atkári, Laura Bos, Claudius Klose, Jiríˇ Kašpar, Pat Littell, Anne Mucha, Agata Renans, Nele Salveste, Radek Šimík, Upsorn Tawilapakul, and Marta Wierzba for fruitful discussion and lots of espresso. A large thanks is also owed to the people who made sure I had hobbies in grad school. Andrea Aquino, Andrew Malcovsky, Thomas Todd, and Phil Waddell for the Monday night trivia. Ian Hall and Nikki Salica for the Tuesday night dinners. Robin Phillips, Kevin Osborn, Bob Bailey, Kim Bolin, Sydney Gellner, Kaelyn Leake, Dave Mulligan, and Mike Ody for the Thursday night fencing. Members of UAW 2865 for the activism (and the beer). SC Sharks for the Sunday afternoon soccer. Of course, I wouldn’t be here at all without my family. Cathy Samko and Sophie Lacouture have been unwavering soucres of support throughout my life, even after I moved 3,000 miles away from them. Matt Tucker has been a friend, a role model, the best husband I could ask for, the person who keeps me going,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • From Phenomenological Self-Givenness to the Notion of Spiritual Freedom IRIS HENNIGFELD
    PhænEx 13, no. 2 (Winter 2020): 38-51 © 2020 Iris Hennigfeld From Phenomenological Self-Givenness to the Notion of Spiritual Freedom IRIS HENNIGFELD The program of the phenomenological movement, “Back to the things themselves!” does not point to any particular topic of phenomenological investigation, for example the question of being (ontology) or the question of God (metaphysics). Rather, it designates a specific methodological approach toward the things, and, as its final aim, toward a particular mode in which the things are given in experience. One particular mode in which the things are given with full evidence and in original intuition is “self-givenness”. In the experience of self-givenness, the object is fully present, or, in Edmund Husserl’s words, given in “originary presentive intuition” (Husserl, Ideas I 44, cf. 36). The correlative act on the part of the subject, the noesis, is a “seeing” which is not restricted to the senses but must be understood “in the universal sense as an originally presentive consciousness of any kind whatever” (Husserl, Ideas I 36). Self-givenness also represents the criterion of evidence and truth. The phenomenological principles of givenness and self-givenness can be made fruitful in particular for a description and investigation of those phenomena which, according to their very nature, resist other theoretical approaches. Such more “resilient” phenomena include interpersonal, religious or aesthetic experiences. Presentation becomes, in accordance with philosophical tradition, the dominant model in phenomenological research. But first-person experience shows that presentation is not the only mode of givenness and self-givenness. Rather, pushing phenomenology to its limits, the full range of experience shows that there are certain kinds of phenomena of which the genuine mode of givenness cannot be reduced to the way in which objects are presented to a subject.
    [Show full text]
  • Givenness and Its Realization in a Linguistic and in a Non- Linguistic Environment
    VILNIUS PEDAGOGICAL UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH PHILOLOGY NATALIJA ZACHAROVA GIVENNESS AND ITS REALIZATION IN A LINGUISTIC AND IN A NON- LINGUISTIC ENVIRONMENT MA Paper Academic advisor: prof. Dr. Hab. Laimutis Valeika Vilnius, 2008 VILNIUS PEDAGOGICAL UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH PHILOLOGY GIVENNESS AND ITS REALIZATION IN A LINGUISTIC AND IN A NON- LINGUISTIC ENVIRONMENT This MA paper is submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of the MA in English Philology By Natalija Zacharova I declare that this study is my own and does not contain any unacknowledged work from any source. (Signature) (Date) Academic advisor: prof. Dr. Hab. Laimutis Valeika (Signature) (Date) Vilnius, 2008 2 CONTENTS ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………….4 INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………...5 1. THE PROBLEMS OF THE INFORMATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE SENTENCE ……………………………………………………………….8 1.1. The sentence as dialectical entity of given and new……………………...8 1.2. Givenness vs. Newnness………………………………………………….11 1.3. The realization of Givenness……………………………………………..12 1.4. Givenness expressed by the definite article ……………………………..15 1.5. Givenness expressed by the indefinite article…………………………….19 1.6. Givenness expressed by semi-grammatical definite determiners and lexical determiners………………………………………………………..20 2. THE REALIZATION OF GIVENNESS IN A LINGUISTIC ENVIRONMENT……………………………………………………………………21 2.1. Anaphoric Givenness………………………………………………………22 2.2. Cataphoric Givenness……………………………………………………...29 2.3. Givenness expressed by the use of the indefinite article…………………..30 3. THE REALIZATION OF GIVENNESS IN A NON- LINGUISTIC ENVIRONMENT……………………………………………………………………..32 3. 1. The environment of the home……………………………………………...33 3.2. The environment of the town/country, world………………………………35 3.3. The environment of the universe…………………………………………....37 3.4. Cultural environment……………………………………………………….38 4.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Question of Topics in Topic Prominent Interlanguage
    On the Question of Topics in Topic Prominent Interlanguage Marie Fellbaum Korpi Linguistics Program The Australian National University Canberra 2000 [email protected] Abstract For twenty-five years, interlanguage researchers have accepted an early period of topic prominence in the language of a native speaker of Hmong learning English (Huebner 1983). The study was based on Li and Thompson's Typology of Subject-Prominent and Topic Prominent language types. Since Huebner only examined properties of topic prominent languages without also looking for evidence of subject, I revisit the study and show evidence for subjecthood from grammatical relations, semantic functions, and properties of behavior and control. An investigation of one of the properties, namely that topics control co-referential constituent deletion, suggests instead evidence for subject in serial verb constructions. After finding evidence for at least three properties of subject as a basic subject-predicate construction in the interlanguage, I propose an alternative analysis that the learner’s early interlanguage must be re-classified as both subject and topic prominent. Keywords Interlanguage, SLA, Subject, Topic Prominence I would like to thank participants of an ANU/RSPAS 2005 seminar and ALS2005 and for their comments on an earlier version, Anthony Diller, Wayan Arka, and two anonymous ALS reviewers for their comments. 2/16 On the Question of Topics in Topic Prominent Interlanguage 1.0 Introduction The notion of an early stage of topic prominence in interlanguage, the language system of learners as they develop from their first/native language (L1) to the language they are attempting to acquire, the target language (TL), was first proposed by Huebner in 1983.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 12 Expletive Pronouns
    Hardegree, Compositional Semantics, Chapter 12: Expletive Pronouns 1 of 36 Chapter 12 Expletive Pronouns 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 2 2. Overview ........................................................................................................................... 2 3. Expletive-There .................................................................................................................. 2 4. Fundamental Proposal: Expletive-There is an Anaphoric Pronoun ..................................... 3 5. How do we Read ‘be’ in ‘There be’? ................................................................................. 3 6. What is the Point of There? ................................................................................................ 6 7. Looney Examples of Topic-Comment ............................................................................... 7 8. Junction-Simplification Revisited ...................................................................................... 7 9. Other Anaphoric Uses of There.......................................................................................... 8 10. Relative-There ................................................................................................................... 9 11. Expletive-it ......................................................................................................................... 9 12. "It" is Raining .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Pragmatics and Grammar: Motivation and Control Robert A
    Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota Session Volume 32 Article 3 1988 Pragmatics and grammar: Motivation and control Robert A. Dooley SIL-UND Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.und.edu/sil-work-papers Recommended Citation Dooley, Robert A. (1988) "Pragmatics and grammar: Motivation and control," Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota Session: Vol. 32 , Article 3. DOI: 10.31356/silwp.vol32.03 Available at: https://commons.und.edu/sil-work-papers/vol32/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UND Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota Session by an authorized editor of UND Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PRAGMATICS AND GRAIUIAR.: HOTIVATIOII AND OOIITROL Robert A. Dooley 1 Introduction 2 Pragmatics in relation to semantics and syntax 2.1 Early definitions of pragmatics 2.2 The interface between pragmatics and semantics 2.3 The interface between pragmatics and syntax 2.4 Externally motivated phenomena encoded by grammar 2.5 Types of interaction between grammar and pragmatics 3 Pragmatic phenomena with little or no grammaticalization 3.1 Mbya hearsay particle 3.2 Wayampi main clause word order 4 Pragmatic phenomena with partial grammaticalization 4.1 Mbya future marker 4.2 Hixkaryana hearsay particle 4.3 Hixkaryana afterthought elements 5 Pragmatic phenomena with more or less complete grammaticalization 5.1 English WR-clefts 5.2 Dutch auxiliary placement 6 Concluding remarks I Introduction Much of what has been done as "pragmatics" has dealt with utterance interpretation, that is, with the influence of context on meaning.
    [Show full text]
  • Focus and Givenness: a Unified Approach Michael Wagner Mcgill University
    1 Focus and Givenness: A Unified Approach Michael Wagner McGill University Abstract Theories about information structure differ in treating focus-, contrast-, and givenness-marking as either a single phenomenon or as distinct phenomena. This paper argues for a unified approach, following the lead of Schwarzschild (1999), but a unified approach based on local alternatives (Wagner, 2005, 2006b).1 The basic insights of the local alternatives approach are captured using a new formalization, which aims to fix several problems in the original proposal noted in B¨uring (2008). The unified approach is compared with alternative approaches that invoke separate mechanisms for givenness and focus: the disanaphora approach (Williams, 1997), the F-Projection account (Selkirk, 1984, 1995), and the reference set approach in Szendr¨oi (2001) and Reinhart (2006). All of these have fundamental problems, and the requisite revisions render them equivalent to the local alternatives approach. Keywords: alternatives, focus, givenness, prosody, contrast, information struc- ture 1 The label ‘local alternatives’ for the ‘relative giveneness’ account in Wagner (2005, 2006b) was proposed in Rooth (2007) and seems like a more appropriate term. 2 Michael Wagner 1.1 Three Phenomena, or Two, or One? The distribution of accents in a sentence in English is affected by informa- tion structure in a systematic way. Information structure comprises a broad set of phenomena. This paper looks at three types of effects that influence the prosody of a sentence, those of question-answer congruence, contrast, and givenness, and presents evidence—some new, some already presented in Wag- ner (2005, 2006b)—that all three should be treated as reflexes of the same underlying phenomenon.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 1 Type-Shifting
    Appendix 1 Type-Shifting Since a formal exposition of type-shifting theory is beyond the scope of this dissertation, I offer here only a brief sketch of the principle components, as presented in Partee 1987.1 The general motivation is roughly that Montague's ‘one category: one type’ restriction can be loosened to allow a single syntactic category to correspond to a family of semantic types. Partee suggests that the traditional distinction between referential, predicative, and quantificational noun phrases can be captured formally by allowing noun phrases to be interpreted, respectively, as individuals (type e), predicates (type <e,t>), or generalized quantifiers (type <<e,t>,t>). She suggests specifically that particular types of referring expression can receive the translations shown in (i): (i) NP TRANSLATION TYPE a. John MG: λP[P(j)] <<e,t>,t> je b. hen MG: λP[P(xn)] <<e,t>,t> xn e c. every man MG: λP[∀x[man'(x) → P(x)]] <<e,t>,t> d. the man MG: λP[∃x[∀y[man'(y) ↔ y = x] & <<e,t>,t> P(x)]] i. ιx[man'(x)] e ii. λx[man'(x) & ∀y[man'(y) ↔ y = x] <e,t> e. a man MG: λP[∃x[man'(x) & P(x)]] <<e,t>,t> i. man' <e,t> ii. Kamp-Heim: xi e cond: man'(xi), xi “new” f. dogs2 i. Chierchia: ∧dog' e ii. Carlson, in effect: λP[P ∧dog')] <<e,t>,t> iii. dog' <e,t> 1See especially Partee and Rooth 1983 on type-shifting and the semantics of noun phrase coordination, and Partee 1986 on type-shifting and the semantics of pseudoclefts.
    [Show full text]
  • Contrastive Topic, Contrastive Focus, Alternatives, and Scalar Implicatures
    Contrastive Topic, Contrastive Focus, Alternatives, and Scalar Implicatures Chungmin Lee Abstract This chapter attempts to establish Contrastive Topic (CT) and Con- trastive Focus (CF) in relation to how their alternatives are evoked via their focal components involved and Question under Discussion (QUD) in discourse. CT, as part of Potential Topic, is claimed to generate conventional scalar implicature, not cancellable. CT but not ‘list CT’ has unresolved sub-questions. CF is shown to occur via alternative question (ALT-Q), which has the exhaustivity condition that exactly one disjunct holds. CT and CF constructions are cross-linguistically wit- nessed. CF, in parallelism with ALT-Q, may shed some light on the problematic exceptions to suspension of scalar implicatures in DE contexts such as antecedents of conditionals, and similar problems as well. Keywords Contrastive topic ⋅ Contrastive focus ⋅ Potential topic ⋅ QUD ⋅ Conventional scalar implicature ⋅ Alternative question (ALT-Q) ⋅ Exhaustivity 1 Contrastive Topic Sentential utterances in discourse are structured to optimize the exchange of information. Several dimensions of information structure have been identified by various authors: Topic and Focus, Topic and Comment, Topic (=Link), Tail and Focus, and finally Contrastive Topic and Contrastive Focus. As for topic-comment, the speaker of a sentence identifies something to talk about as a topic, and then I would like to express my gratitude to Manfred Krifka for his comments on and improvement of style of part of an earlier version and an anonymous reviewer at ESSLLI 2013 for his/her comments on the workshop abstract. I also thank the series editor’s (Marcel den Dikken) comments on style.
    [Show full text]
  • BORE ASPECTS OP MODERN GREEK SYLTAX by Athanaaios Kakouriotis a Thesis Submitted Fox 1 the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Of
    BORE ASPECTS OP MODERN GREEK SYLTAX by Athanaaios Kakouriotis A thesis submitted fox1 the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the University of London School of Oriental and African Studies University of London 1979 ProQuest Number: 10731354 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest ProQuest 10731354 Published by ProQuest LLC(2017). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C ode Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 II Abstract The present thesis aims to describe some aspects of Mod Greek syntax.It contains an introduction and five chapters. The introduction states the purpose for writing this thesis and points out the fact that it is a data-oriented rather, chan a theory-^oriented work. Chapter one deals with the word order in Mod Greek. The main conclusion drawn from this chapter is that, given the re­ latively rich system of inflexions of Mod Greek,there is a freedom of word order in this language;an attempt is made to account for this phenomenon in terms of the thematic structure. of the sentence and PSP theory. The second chapter examines the clitics;special attention is paid to clitic objects and some problems concerning their syntactic relations .to the rest of the sentence are pointed out;the chapter ends with the tentative suggestion that cli­ tics might be taken care of by the morphologichi component of the grammar• Chapter three deals with complementation;this a vast area of study and-for this reason the analysis is confined to 'oti1, 'na* and'pu' complement clauses; Object Raising, Verb Raising and Extraposition are also discussed in this chapter.
    [Show full text]
  • Topic Structures in Chinese Author(S): Xu Liejiong and D
    Linguistic Society of America Topic Structures in Chinese Author(s): Xu Liejiong and D. Terence Langendoen Source: Language, Vol. 61, No. 1 (Mar., 1985), pp. 1-27 Published by: Linguistic Society of America Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/413419 Accessed: 11/05/2009 22:37 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lsa. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Linguistic Society of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Language. http://www.jstor.org TOPIC STRUCTURES IN CHINESE Xu LIEJIONG D.
    [Show full text]
  • Aarons, Debra. 1994. Aspects of the Syntax of American Sign Language. Phd Dissertation, Boston University. Aboh, Enoch O./Pfau, Roland/Zeshan, Ulrike. 2005. When a Wh-Word Is
    References Aarons, Debra. 1994. Aspects of the syntax of American Sign Language. PhD dissertation, Boston University. Aboh, Enoch O./Pfau, Roland/Zeshan, Ulrike. 2005. When a Wh-Word is Not aWh-Word: The Case of Indian Sign Language. In: Bhattacharya, T. (ed.) The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 11–43. Adam, Meike/Iversen,Wiebke/Wilkinson, Erin/Morford, Jill P. 2007. Meaning on the one and on the other hand. Iconicity in native vs. foreign sign languages. In: Tabakowska, Elizabieta/Ljungberg, Christina/Fischer, Olga (eds.) Insistent Images. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 209–225. Adone, Dany/Bauer, Anastasia/Mohr, Susanne. 2009. Mouthing and mouth gestures in a young sign language. Paper presented at the Nonmanuals in Sign Languages Workshop, Frankfurt a. M. Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2006. Serial verb constructions in a typological perspective. In: Aikhenvald, Alexandra/Dixon, Robert M. W. (eds.) Serial verb constructions: A cross-linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–87. Anward, Jan. 2000. A dynamic model of part-of-speech differentiation. In: Comrie, Bernard/Vogel, Petra M. (eds.) Approaches to the typology of word classes. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 3–45. Aronoff, Mark/Meir, Irit/Padden, Carol/Sandler, Wendy. 2003. Classifier Constructions and Morphology in Two Sign Languages. In: Emmorey, Karen (ed.) Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages. London: Psychology Press, 53–84. Aronoff, Mark/Meir, Irit/Padden, Carol/Sandler, Wendy. 2005. Morphological universals and the sign language type. In: Booij, Geert/Marle, Jan van (eds.) Yearbook of Morhology 2004. Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 19–39. Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Show full text]
  • Information to Users
    INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type ofcomputer printer. The quality ofthis reproduction is dependent upon the quality ofthe copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back ofthe book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521~600 PRAGMATIC COMPREHENSION: A DEVELOPMENTAL STUDY OF MANDARIN-SPEAKING CHllDREN'S STRATEGIES FOR INTERPRETATION OF GIVEN AND NEW INFORMATION A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DMSION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAn IN PARTIAL FULFllLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN LINGUISTICS MAY 19% By Shu-hui Eileen Chen Dissertation Committee: Ann M.
    [Show full text]