Reversed ang-inversion and narrow focus marking in Tagalog

References

1. Collins, Suzanne
   2008 The Hunger Games. Scholastic.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Collins, Suzanne
   2009 Catching Fire. Scholastic.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Collins, Suzanne
   2010 Mockingjay. Scholastic.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Collins, Suzanne
   2012a Catching Fire (Filipino edition). Quezon City: Precious Pages Corporation.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Collins, Suzanne
   2012b The Hunger Games (Filipino edition). Quezon City: Precious Pages Corporation.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Collins, Suzanne
   2013 Mockingjay. Quezon City: Precious Pages Corporation.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Declerck, Renaat
   1984 The pragmatics of it-clefts and wh-clefts. Lingua64(4). 251–289. 10.1016/0024‑3841(84)90065‑2
   https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(84)90065-2 [Google Scholar]
8. Dery, Jeruen E.
   2007 Pragmatic focus and word order variation in Tagalog. Language and Linguistics8(1). 373–402.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Frascarelli, Mara & Francesca Ramaglia
   2009 (Pseudo)cleft constructions at the interfaces. Manuscript. lingbuzz/000841 (2018–01–02). https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000841
10. Güldemann, Tom
    2016 Maximal backgrounding= focus without (necessary) focus encoding. Studies in Language40(3). 551–590. 10.1075/sl.40.3.03gul
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.40.3.03gul [Google Scholar]
11. Gundel, Jeanette K.
    1988 Universals of topic-comment structure. In M. Hammond , E. Moravcsik & J. Wirth (eds.), Studies in linguistic typology, 209–239. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Kaufman, Daniel
    2005 Aspects of pragmatic focus in Tagalog. In I. Wayan Arka & Malcolm Ross (eds.), The many faces of Austronesian voice systems: some new empirical studies, 175–196. Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, ANU.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Kroeger, Paul
    1991 Phrase structure and grammatical relations in Tagalog: Stanford University dissertation.
14. Lambrecht, Knud
    1986 Topic, focus and the grammar of spoken French: University of California, Berkeley dissertation.
15. Lambrecht, Knud
    1987 Sentence focus, information structure, and the thetic-categorical distinction. InProceedings of the 13th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, vol.13, 366–382. Berkeley Linguistics Society.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Lambrecht, Knud
    1994 Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
17. Lambrecht, Knud
    2000 When subjects behave like objects: An analysis of the merging of S and O in sentence-focus constructions across languages. Studies in Language24(3). 611–682. 10.1075/sl.24.3.06lam
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.24.3.06lam [Google Scholar]
18. Latrouite, Anja
    2019 Specification Predication, Unexpectedness and Cleft-Constructions in Tagalog. Manuscript currently under review.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Latrouite, Anja & Arndt Riester
    2018 The role of information structure for morphosyntactic choices in Tagalog. Riesberg, Sonja & Shiohara, Asako. Information Structure in Austronesian Languages. Berlin: Language Science Press. 1–47. (in press).
    [Google Scholar]
20. Latrouite, Anja & Robert D. Van Valin, Jr.
    to appear. A Role and Reference Grammar account of aspects of the information structure-syntax interface in Tagalog. In Koen van Hooste , Anja Latrouite & Robert D. Van Valin, Jr. eds. Proceedings of the 2015 Role and Reference Grammar conference, in preparation.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Lee, Eun Hee & Mitsuaki Shimojo
    2016 Mismatch of topic between Japanese and Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics25(1). 81–112. 10.1007/s10831‑015‑9138‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-015-9138-x [Google Scholar]
22. Lovestrand, Joseph
    2018 The background marker ná in Barayin. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics39(1). 1–39. 10.1515/jall‑2018‑0001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jall-2018-0001 [Google Scholar]
23. Mayer, Mercer
    1967 A boy, a dog and a frog. New York: Dial Press.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Mayer, Mercer
    1969 Frog, where are you?New York: Dial Press.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Mayer, Mercer
    1971 A boy, a dog, a frog and a friend. New York: Dial Press.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Nagaya, Naonori
    2006a Preferred referential expressions in Tagalog. Tokyo University Linguistics Papers25. 83–106.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Nagaya, Naonori
    2006b Topicality and reference-tracking in Tagalog. In9th philippine linguistics congress. Quezon City: University of the philippines diliman, Citeseer.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Nagaya, Naonori
    2007 Information structure and constituent order in Tagalog. Language and Linguistics8(1). 343–372.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Schachter, Paul & Fe T. Otanes
    1972 Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Shimojo, Mitsuaki & Hye-Won Choi
    2000 On asymmetry in topic marking-the case of Japanese wa and Korean nun. In Akira Okrent & John P. Boyle (eds.), Chicago linguistic society, vol.361, 455–467.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Simons, Gary F. & Charles D. Fennig
    2018 Ethnologue: Languages of the world, twenty-first edition, online version (last visited: 2018-03-22). www.ethnologue.com
32. Skopeteas, Stavros , Ines Fiedler , Samantha Hellmuth , Anne Schwarz , Ruben Stoel , Gisbert Fanselow , Caroline Féry & Manfred Krifka
    2006 Questionnaire on information structure (QUIS): Reference manual, vol.4. Universitätsverlag Potsdam.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Van Valin, Robert D., Jr.
    2005 Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511610578
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610578 [Google Scholar]
34. Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. & Randy J. LaPolla
    1997 Syntax: Structure, meaning, and function. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139166799
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166799 [Google Scholar]
35. Ward, Gregory & Betty J. Birner
    2011 Discourse effects of word order variation. In Claudia Maienborn , Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language and meaning, vol.332, 1934–1963. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]