LEADER 06075nam 2200745 450 001 9910465629103321 005 20200520144314.0 010 $a90-272-7046-5 035 $a(CKB)2560000000149326 035 $a(EBL)1676585 035 $a(SSID)ssj0001181513 035 $a(PQKBManifestationID)12553049 035 $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0001181513 035 $a(PQKBWorkID)11145590 035 $a(PQKB)10963770 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC1676585 035 $a(Au-PeEL)EBL1676585 035 $a(CaPaEBR)ebr10861906 035 $a(OCoLC)878263185 035 $a(EXLCZ)992560000000149326 100 $a20140505h20142014 uy 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aur|n|---||||| 181 $ctxt 182 $cc 183 $acr 200 00$aInformation structure and syntactic change in Germanic and Romance languages /$fedited by Kristin Bech, Kristine Gunn Eide 210 1$aAmsterdam, The Netherlands ;$aPhiladelphia, [Pennsylvania] :$cJohn Benjamins Publishing Company,$d2014. 210 4$dİ2014 215 $a1 online resource (429 p.) 225 1 $aLinguistik Aktuell = Linguistics Today 300 $aDescription based upon print version of record. 311 $a90-272-5596-2 320 $aIncludes bibliographical references and indexes. 327 $aInformation Structure and Syntactic Changein Germanic and Romance Languages; Editorial page; Title page; LCC data; Table of contents; PartI. Information-structural categories and corpus annotation; Part II.Changes on the interface between syntax and information structure; Part III.Comparisons on the interface between syntax and information structure; Acknowledgements; Information structure and syntax in oldGermanic and Romance languages; 1. Introduction; 2. Approaches to information structure and syntax in historical linguistics; 3. Annotated corpora; 4. The structure of the book; References 327 $aThe theoretical foundations of givenness annotation1. Introduction; 1.1 Theory and practice; 2. Theory; 2.1 Discourse referents; 2.2 Taggables; 2.3 Reference contexts; 2.4 Contexts and reference resolution in dynamic semantics; 2.4.1 The discourse context; 2.4.2 The encyclopaedic context and the situation context; 2.4.3 The scenario context; 2.4.4 Embedded contexts and non-specificity; 2.5 Generic reference; 2.6 The PROIEL tagset; 3. Annotation in practice; 3.1 General; 3.2 Specificity - nonspec vs. new; 3.3 Genericity; 3.3.1 kind vs. nonspec; 3.3.2 kind vs. acc-gen; 3.4 Bridging 327 $a3.4.1 acc-inf vs old3.4.2 acc-inf vs new, nonspec or no tag - the limits to inference; 4. Evaluation and conclusions; 4.1 The PROIEL scheme and other givenness annotation schemes; 4.2 Annotation workflow and interannotator agreement; 4.3 Data sample; 4.4 Conclusions; References; Testing the theory; 1. Introduction; 2. The data; 3. 'Old/given' information; 4. Inferables; 5. 'New' information; 6. Conclusions; Appendix A: Notes on data collection; References; Quantifying information structure changein English; 1. Introduction; 1.1 Old English V2 syntax and the subject 327 $a1.2 The changing role of the English subject1.3 Hypotheses; 2. Corpora; 2.1 Referential status; 2.2 Enriched texts; 3. Experiments; 3.1 Subject ellipsis; 3.2 Subject referent switch; 3.2.1 A definition of subject-referent switch; 3.2.2 Measuring subject-referent switch; 3.2.3 Subject-referent switch results; 3.2.4 Subject chain distribution; 3.3 Subject animacy; 3.3.1 Determining subject animacy; 3.3.2 Subject animacy results; 3.4 Pre-subject linking; 3.4.1 Clause-initial linking; 3.4.2 Determining pre-subject linking; 3.4.3 Pre-subject linking results; 4. Conclusions and discussion 327 $a5. SourcesReferences; Tracing overlap in function in historical corpora; 1. Introduction; 2. The passive and object fronting as 'information-rearrangers'; 3. Comparing the function of passives and object fronting in Old English; 3.1 Information status categories; 3.2 Results for long passives; 3.3 Results for object fronting; 4. The frequency of topicalization and passivization in the history of English; 5. Conclusion; References; Referential properties of the full and reduced forms of the definite article in German; 1. Introduction 327 $a2. The distribution of full and reduced definite articles in Present-day German: Some theoretical concepts 330 $aIn this article, we discuss how contrastivity can be identified in historical texts where we have no direct access to prosodic features such as stress and intonation. We depart from our knowledge of contrastivity in the modern languages and their exponence in Modern Spanish and Portuguese, where both word order and prosody play a role in expressing contrast, and compare the analysis of the modern languages to our data of Old Spanish and Old Portuguese. Our findings indicate that very little has changed with regard to the expression of contrastivity through word order. Therefore, any word order 410 0$aLinguistik aktuell. 606 $aGrammar, Comparative and general$xTopic and content 606 $aGrammar, Comparative and general$xSyntax 606 $aGermanic languages$xGrammar, Comparative$xRomance 606 $aRomance languages$xGrammar, Comparative$xGermanic 606 $aLanguage and languages$xVariation 606 $aComparative linguistics 608 $aElectronic books. 615 0$aGrammar, Comparative and general$xTopic and content. 615 0$aGrammar, Comparative and general$xSyntax. 615 0$aGermanic languages$xGrammar, Comparative$xRomance. 615 0$aRomance languages$xGrammar, Comparative$xGermanic. 615 0$aLanguage and languages$xVariation. 615 0$aComparative linguistics. 676 $a430/.045 702 $aBech$b Kristin 702 $aEide$b Kristine Gunn 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910465629103321 996 $aInformation structure and syntactic change in Germanic and Romance languages$92206613 997 $aUNINA