LEADER 05657nam 2200733 450 001 9910789019503321 005 20230803201853.0 010 $a90-272-7059-7 035 $a(CKB)3710000000089004 035 $a(EBL)1637310 035 $a(SSID)ssj0001131044 035 $a(PQKBManifestationID)11976140 035 $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0001131044 035 $a(PQKBWorkID)11110676 035 $a(PQKB)10888978 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC1637310 035 $a(Au-PeEL)EBL1637310 035 $a(CaPaEBR)ebr10838919 035 $a(CaONFJC)MIL577361 035 $a(OCoLC)871037758 035 $a(EXLCZ)993710000000089004 100 $a20131220h20142014 uy| 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aurcnu|||||||| 181 $ctxt 182 $cc 183 $acr 200 00$aPerspectives on linguistic structure and context $estudies in honor of Knud Lambrecht /$fedited by Stacey Katz Bourns, Harvard University, Lindsy L. Myers, University of Missouri, Kansas City 210 1$aAmsterdam :$cJohn Benjamins Publishing Company,$d[2014] 210 4$dİ2014 215 $a1 online resource (260 p.) 225 1 $aPragmatics & Beyond New Series (P&BNS),$x0922-842X ;$vvolume 244 300 $aDescription based upon print version of record. 311 $a90-272-5649-7 320 $aIncludes bibliographical references and index. 327 $aPerspectives on Linguistic Structure and Context; Editorial page; Title page; LCC data; Table of contents; Introduction; References; Acknowledgements; I. Grammatical constructions; The information structure of ditransitives: Informing scope properties and long-distance dependency constraints; 1. Introduction; 2. What is information structure?; 3. Topicality and quantifier scope; 4. The ditransitive construction; 4.1 Ditransitive construction and scope facts; 4.2 Interaction of the ditransitive with questions, passives; 5. Conclusion; References 327 $aNon-promotional passives and unspecified subject constructions: Navigating the typological Kuiper Belt 1. Introduction; 2. The Irish autonomous construction; 3. Polish vs. Ukrainian; 4. The Icelandic "New Impersonal" construction; 5. The -ya construction in Northern and Central Pomo: Passive or active?; 5.1 Syntactic properties of the unexpressed argument; 5.2 Semantic properties of the unexpressed argument; 5.3 Other subject properties; 5.4 Anomalies; 6. Conclusion; References 327 $aOn the relationship between sentence focus category, subject-verb order, and genericity: A preliminary analysis of some Italian unaccusatives 1. Introduction; 2. Genericity, sentence focus category, and subject-verb inversion; 2.1 Genericity; 2.2 Sentence focus category and subject-verb order; 2.2.1 Sentence focus category; 2.2.2 Postverbal subject position; 3. SF and VS order in unaccusatives denoting change of location and change of state; 3.1 Particular (specific) sentences; 3.2 Characterizing (generic) sentences 327 $a4. SF and VS order in Italian unaccusatives denoting lack/absence and necessity 4.1 Mancare and servire in particular sentences; 4.2 Mancare and servire in characterizing sentences; 5. Discussion; 5.1 Characterizing sentences cannot be focal; 5.2 Unaccusatives of change of location/state vis-a?-vis mancare and servire; 6. Conclusion; References; Frames and the interpretation of omitted arguments in English; 1. Introduction; 2. A taxonomy of omissions; 2.1 Complications; 2.1.1 Difficulties identifying the interpretation type; 2.1.2 Non-instantiation 327 $a3. Predicting the interpretation type of a null complement 3.1 The framal implicational account; 3.2 Accounting for exceptions; 4. Competing explanations; 4.1 Selectional restrictions; 4.2 The Aktionsart-based account; 5. Motivating the frame-based generalization; 6. Narrow scope generalizations; 7. Conclusion; References; Interactive frames and grammatical constructions; 1. Introduction; 2. Interactive frames; 3. Connecting grammatical constructions to interactive frames; 4. Right dislocations in French assessments; 4.1 The paradoxical functions of RD in French discourse 327 $a4.2 RD and evaluation 330 $aA number of studies of Left Dislocation (LD) in spoken French within the Interactional Linguistics (IL) framework (de Fornel 1988; Pekarek Doehler 2001; Chevalier 2011b) have been critical of the information-structure analyses of this construction as set forth in Lambrecht (1981, 1994) and Barnes (1985). This discussion attempts to clarify the original information-structure analysis, arguing that the pragmatic definition of LD should be limited to the explicit marking of the sentence-topic and its associated comment. This topic-comment configuration is compatible with a large variety of partic 410 0$aPragmatics & beyond new series ;$v244. 606 $aGrammar, Comparative and general$xSentences 606 $aGrammar, Comparative and general$xSyntax 606 $aFunctionalism (Linguistics) 606 $aDiscourse analysis 606 $aPragmatics 615 0$aGrammar, Comparative and general$xSentences. 615 0$aGrammar, Comparative and general$xSyntax. 615 0$aFunctionalism (Linguistics) 615 0$aDiscourse analysis. 615 0$aPragmatics. 676 $a415 701 $aBourns$b Stacey Katz$f1963-$01533863 701 $aMyers$b Lindsy L$c(Linguist)$01533864 701 $aLambrecht$b Knud$0174463 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910789019503321 996 $aPerspectives on linguistic structure and context$93781015 997 $aUNINA