Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T18:56:52.225Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Knud Lambrecht, Information structure and sentence form: topic focus and the mental representation of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Pp. xvi+388.

Review products

Knud Lambrecht, Information structure and sentence form: topic focus and the mental representation of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Pp. xvi+388.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Mira Ariel
Mira Ariel
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 64232, Israel. E-mail: mariel@ccsg.tau.ac.il
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Reviews
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , March 1996 , pp. 205 - 210
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

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.)

References

Ariel, M. (1988). Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics 24.1. 65–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing NP antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Carden, G. (1982). Backwards anaphora in discourse context. Journal of Linguistics 18.2. 361–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1987). Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Tomlin, R. (ed.) Coherence and grounding in discourse. (Typological Studies in Language II.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 21–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G. (1993). A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry 24.2. 239–298.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W. (1985). Competing motivations. In Haiman, J. (ed.) Iconicity in syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 343–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (ed.) (1983). Topic continuity in discourse: a quantitative cross-language study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. L. (eds.) Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts. New York: Academic Press. 41–58.Google Scholar
Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N. & Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69.2. 274–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, E. F. (1988). Discourse analysis: a part of the study of linguistic competence. In Newmeyer, F. J. (ed.) Linguistics: the Cambridge survey. (Vol. 2.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 164–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1981). Pragmatics and linguistics: an analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27.1. 53–94.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (to appear). Focus – the interface. Part III of Interface strategies. Distributed by OTS Working Papers, Utrecht.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. & Sperber, D. (1986). Pragmatics and modularity. In Farley, A. M., Farley, P. T. & McCullough, K. E. (eds.) Papers from the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 67–84.Google Scholar
Ziv, Y. (1994). Left and right dislocation: discourse functions and anaphora. Journal of Pragmatics. 22 629–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar