Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sentence Accent in Information Questions: Default and Projection

  • Published:
Linguistics and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Andrews, A.: 1985, ‘The Major Functions of the Noun Phrase’, in T. Shopen (ed.), Syntactic typology and Linguistic Description, Volume 1: Clause Structure, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 62–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartels, C.: 1997, ‘The Pragmatics of WH-Question Intonation in English’, in Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, Volume 4.

  • Bolinger, D.: 1954, ‘English Prosodic Stress and Spanish Sentence Order’, Hispania 37, 152–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolinger, D.: 1961, ‘Contrastive Accent and Contrastive Stress’, Language 37, 83–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolinger, D.: 1971, The Phrasal Verb in English, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolinger, D.: 1972, ‘Accent is Predictable (if you're a Mind Reader)’, Language 48, 633–644.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, S. E.: 1995, ‘Centering Attention in Discourse’, Language and Cognitive Processes 10, 137–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bresnan, J.: 1971, ‘Sentence Stress and Syntactic Transformations’, Language 47, 257–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bresnan, J.: 1972, ‘Stress and Syntax: A Reply’, Language 48, 326–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chafe, W.: 1974, ‘Language and Consciousness’, Language 50, 111–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chafe, W.: 1976, ‘Givenness, Contrastiveness, Definiteness, Subjects, Topics and Point of View’, in C. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic, Academic Publishers, New York, pp. 25–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chafe, W.: 1987, ‘Cognitive Constraints on Information Flow’, in R. Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse. Typological Studies in Language, Volume 11, Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 21–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. and M. Halle: 1968, The Sound Pattern of English, Harper & Row, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comrie, B.: 1981, Language Universals and Linguistic Typology, Chicago University Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Croft, W.: 1995, ‘Autonomy and Functional Grammar’, Language 71, 490–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Culicover, P. and M. Rochemont: 1983, ‘Stress and Focus in English’, Language 59, 123–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demuth, C.: 1987, ‘Pragmatic Functions of Word Order in Sesotho Aequisition’, in R. Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 91–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dirksen, A.: 1992, ‘Accenting and Deaccenting: A Declarative Approach’, in Proceeding of COLING-92, 865–869.

  • Dryer, M.: 1996, ‘Focus, Pragmatic Presupposition, and Activated Propositions’, Journal of Pragmatics 26, 475–523.

    Google Scholar 

  • England, N. C.: 1983, A Grammar of Mam, A Mayan Language, University of Texas Press, Austin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erteshik-Shir, N.: 1986, ‘WH-Questions and Focus’, Linguistics and Philosophy 9, 117–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erteshik-Shir, N.: 1995, The Dynamics of Focus Structure, Ms. Ben Gurion University of the Negev.

  • Faber, D.: 1987, ‘The Accentuation of Intransitive Sentences in English’, Journal of Linguistics 23, 341–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, A.: 1976, ‘“Normaler” und “Kontrastiver” Akzent’, Lingua 38, 293–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, A.: 1984, ‘“Deaccenting” and “Default Accent”’, in D. Gibbon and H. Richter (eds), Intonation, Accent and Rhythm, (Studies in Discourse Phonology), de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 134–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Givón, T.: 1983, ‘Topic Continuity in Discourse: An Introduction’, in T. Givón (ed.), Topic Continuity in Discourse, Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 3–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gundel, J. K., N. Hedberg, and R. Zacharski: 1993, ‘Cognitive Status and the Form of Referring Expressions in Discourse’, Language 69, 274–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gussenhoven, C.: 1983, ‘Focus, Mode and the Nucleus’, Journal of Linguistics 19, 377–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K.: 1967, ‘Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English, Part II’, Journal of Linguistics 3, 199–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschberg, J.: 1990, ‘Accent and Discourse Context: Assigning Pitch Accent in Synthetic Speech’, in Proceedings of the Eighth National Conference of the AAAI, American Association for Artificial Intelligence, Boston, pp. 952–957.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoekstra, T. and R. Mulder: 1990, ‘Unergatives as Copular Verbs: Locational and Existential Predication’, Linguistic Review 7, 1–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Höhle, T.: 1982, ‘Explikationen für “Normale Betonung” und “Normale Wortstellung”’, in W. Abraham (ed.), Satzglieder im Deutschen, Gunter Narr Verlag, Tübingen, pp. 75–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, L. R.: 1981, ‘Exhaustiveness and the Semantics of Clefts’, in V. Burke and J. Pustejovsky (eds.), North Eastern Linguistics Society 11, 125–142.

  • Horne, M.: 1985, ‘English Sentence Stress, Grammatical Functions, and Contextual Coreference’, Studia Linguistica 39, 51–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horvath, J.: 1986, ‘Focus in the Theory of Grammar and the Syntax of Hungarian’, Studies in Generative Grammar, Volume 24, Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackendoff, R.: 1972, Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, J.: 1991, ‘Focus Ambiguities’, Journal of Semantics 8, 1–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, J.: 1992, ‘Neutral Stress and the Position of Heads’, in J. Jacobs (ed.), Informationsstruktur und Grammatik. Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 4, 1991/2, pp. 220–244.

  • Kuroda, S.-Y.: 1972, ‘The Categorical and the Thetic Judgment: Evidence from Japanese Syntax’, Foundations of Language 9, 153–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladd, R. D.: 1978, The Structure of Intonational Meaning: Evidence from English, Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladd, R. D.: 1996, Intonational Phonology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladusaw, W. A.: 1995, ‘Thetic and Categorical, Stage and Individual, Weak and Strong’, in M. Harvey and L. Santelmann (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 4. Cornell University, Ithaca.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G.: 1971, ‘Presupposition and Relative Well-Formedness’, in D. D. Steinberg and L. Jakobovits (eds.), Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics, and Psychology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 329–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G.: 1972, ‘The Global Nature of the Nuclear Stress Rule’, Language 48, 285–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambrecht, K.: 1987, ‘Sentence Focus, Information Structure, and the Thetic-Categorical Distinction’, in Berkeley Linguistics Society 13, 366–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambrecht, K.: 1994, Information Structure and Sentence Form, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambrecht, K.: 1995, ‘The Pragmatics of Case. On the Relationship between Semantic, Pragmatic, and Grammatical roles in English and French’, in M. Shibatani and S. A. Thompson (eds.), Essays in Semantics and Pragmatics, John Benjamins: Amsterdam, pp. 145–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambrecht, K. and M. Polinsky: 1998, Typological Variation in Sentence-Focus Constructions’, Chicago Linguistics Society 33, Papers from the panels, 189–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liberman, M. and I. Sag: 1974, ‘Prosodic Form and Discourse Function’, Chicago Linguistics Society 10.

  • Manandise, E.: 1988, Evidence from Basque for a New Theory of Grammar, Garland, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaelis, L.: 1988, ‘Indefinites in Vietnamese’, Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics.

  • Michaelis, L. and K. Lambrecht: 1996, ‘Toward a Construction-Based Model of Language Function: The Case of Nominal Extraposition’, Language 72, 215–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milsark, G.: 1974, Existential Sentences in English, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

  • Nunberg, G., I. Sag, and T. Wasow: 1994, ‘Idioms’, Language 70, 491–538.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierrehumbert, J. and J. Hirschberg: 1990, ‘The Meaning of Intonational Contours in the Interpretation of Discourse’, In P. Cohen, J. Morgan and M. Pollack (eds.), Intentions in Communication, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 271–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prince, E.: 1981, ‘Topicalization, Focus Movement and Yiddish Movement: A Pragmatic Differentiation’, Berkeley Linguistics Society 7.

  • Prince, E.: 1986, ‘On the Syntactic Marking of Presupposed Open Propositions’, Chicago Linguistics Society 22.

  • Prince, E. F.: 1992, ‘The ZPG Letter: Subjects, Definiteness, and Information-Status’, in W. C. Mann and S. A. Thompson (eds), Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 295–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raymond, W. R. and K. Homer: 1996, ‘The Interaction of Pragmatic Roles and Thematic Structure in the Selection of Question Form’, Berkeley Linguistics Society 22.

  • Rochemont, M.: 1978, A Theory of Stylistic Rules in English, Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusets.

  • Rooth, M.: 1991, ‘A Theory of Focus Interpretation’, Paper presented at the Workshop on the Syntax and Semantics of Focus, Third European Summer School in Language, Logic, and Information, Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sasse, H.-J.: 1987, ‘The Thetic/Categorical Distinction Revisited’, Linguistics 25, 511–580.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmerling, S. F.: 1976, Aspects of English Sentence Stress, University of Texas Press, Austin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selkirk, E. O.: 1984, Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker, R.: 1974, ‘Pragmatic Presuppositions’, in M. K. Munitz and P. Unger (eds.), Semantics and Philosophy, New York University Press, pp. 197–213.

  • Walker, M. A. and E. F. Prince: 1996, ‘A Bilateral Approach to Givenness: A Hearer-Status Algorithm and a Centering Algorithm’, in T. Fretheim and J. Gundel (eds.), Reference and Referent Accessibility, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 291–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, M. A. and E. F. Prince: 1996, ‘A Bilateral Approach to Givenness: A Hearer-Status Algorithm and a Centering Algorithm’, in T. Fretheim and J. Gundel (eds.), Reference and Referent Accessibility, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 291–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, G. L.: 1988, The Semantics and Pragmatics of Preposing, Garland, New York.

  • Wilson, D. and D. Sperber: 1979, ‘Ordered Entailments: An Alternative to Presuppositional Theories’, in C.-K. Oh and D. A. Dineen (eds.), Presupposition (Syntax and Semantics 11), pp. 299–323. Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of French and Italian, University of Texas/Austin, Austin, TX, 78712-1197, USA, E-mail

    Knud Lambrecht

  2. Linguistics Department, University of Colorado at Boulder, Campus Box 295, Boulder, CO, 80309, USA, E-mail

    Laura a. Michaelis

Authors
  1. Knud Lambrecht
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laura a. Michaelis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lambrecht, K., Michaelis, L.a. Sentence Accent in Information Questions: Default and Projection. Linguistics and Philosophy 21, 477–544 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005327212709

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005327212709

Keywords

Search

Navigation