Cover not available
Article published In:
The dynamicity of communication below, around and above the clause
Edited by Ben Clarke and Jorge Arús-Hita
[English Text Construction 9:1] 2016
► pp. 9–32

Given/New: What do the terms refer to?

A first (small) step

Previous studies indicate that speakers signal the informational status of referents through a combination of intonation, word order and lexical realisation. In this paper, I argue for a non-binary view of information structure with referents being (1) hearer and discourse new, (2) discourse new but hearer given and (3) hearer and discourse given. Thus there can be no simple one-to-one relationship between information structure, lexical realisation and accenting. In the spoken data examined, evidence was found to substantiate a relationship between referential distance and lexical realisation but not between referential distance and tonic accenting. Tonic accents signal speakers’ subjective projection of the importance of a referent but the exact informational meaning signalled by the referent depends on a combination of tonic accent, tone choice, key, linear position and lexical realisation.
Keywords: communicative dynamism, referential distance, intonation, information structure, word order
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 30 June 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.9.1.02ogr
References (46)
Baltazani, Mary. 2003. Broad focus across sentence types in Greek. Paper presented at the 8th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (EUROSPEECH 2003 – INTERSPEECH 2003) , Geneva, Switzerland, 1–4 September 2003. [URL] (Last accessed on 28 December 2015).
Baumann, Stefan & Martine Grice. 2006. The intonation of accessibility. Journal of Pragmatics 381: 1636–1657. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul & David Weenick. n.d. Praat doing Phonetics by Computer. Computer programme Version 5.3.52.
Branigan, Holly P., Martin J. Pickering & Mikihiro Tanaka. 2008. Contributions of animacy to grammatical function assignment and word order during production. Lingua 1181: 172–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brazil, David. 1997. The Communicative Value of Intonation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Coherence and Grounding in Discourse, Russell Tomlin (ed.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 21–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness and Time. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. S. 1995. Intonation units and grammatical structure. Linguistics 711: 490–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruttenden, Alan. 1997. Intonation, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. The de-accenting of old information: A cognitive universal? In Pragmatic Organisation in the Languages of Europe, Giuliano Bernini & Marcia L. Schwartz (eds). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 311–358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daneš, František. 1972. Order of elements and sentence intonation. In Intonation, Dwight Bolinger (ed.). London: Penguin, 216–232.Google Scholar
Davidse, Kristin. 1987. M. A. K. Halliday’s Functional Grammar and the Prague School. In Functionalism in Linguistics, René Dirven & Vilém Fried. (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 39–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2013. Order of subject, object and verb. In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds). Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. [URL] (Last accessed on 9 November 2015).Google Scholar
Firbas, Jan. 1974. Some aspects of the Czechoslovak approach to the problems of functional sentence perspective. In Papers on FSP, František Daneš (ed.). Prague: Academia Press, 11–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1989. Degrees of communicative dynamism and degrees of prosodic prominence weight. Brno Studies in English 181: 21–66.Google Scholar
. 1992. Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995. Retrievability span in Functional Sentence Perspective. Brno Studies in English 211: 17–45.Google Scholar
Fletcher, Janet, Lesley Stirling, Ilana Muhin & Roger Wales. 2002. Intonational rises and dialog acts in the Australian English map task. Language and Speech 45 (3): 226–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geluykens, Ronald. 1989. Information structure in English conversation: The Given-New distinction revisited. Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics 31: 129–147.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1983. Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1990. Syntax: An Introduction, Vol. 21. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette, Nancy Hedberg & Ron Zacharski. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69 (2): 274–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2004. The Phonology of Tone and Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hajičová, Eva & Peter Sgall. 1987. The ordering principle. Journal of Pragmatics 111: 435–454. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. 1967. Intonation and Grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1970. A Course in Spoken English: Intonation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. & William S. Greaves. 2008. Intonation in the Grammar of British English. Equinox: London.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2014. An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 4th edition. Abingdon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2009. Initial I Think: Main or Comment Clause. Discourse and Interaction 2 (1): 49–70.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 2008. Intonation Phonology, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehman, Christina. 1977. A re-analysis of Given-ness: Stress in discourse. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 131: 316–324.
Mathesius, Vilém. 1975. A Functional Analysis of Present Day English on a General Linguistic Basis. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McGregor, William. 1997. Semiotic Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Jim. 2006. Focus in the languages of Europe. In Pragmatic Organisation of Discourse in the Languages of Europe, Giuliano Bernini & Marcia L. Schwartz (eds). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 121–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet & Julia Hirschberg. 1990. The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In Intentions in Communication, Philip R. Cohen, Jerry Morgan & Martha E. Pollack (eds). Cambridge: MIT Press, 271–311.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given–new information. In Radical Pragmatics, Peter Cole, (ed.). New York: Academic Press, 223–255.Google Scholar
. 1992. Subjects, definiteness and information status. In Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-raising Text, William. C. Mann & Sandra A. Thompson (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 295–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svoboda, Aleš. 1981. Two chapters on scene. Brno studies in English 141: 81–92.Google Scholar
. 1983. Thematic elements. Brno studies in English 321: 49–85.Google Scholar
Taglicht, Joseph. 1984. Message and Emphasis: On Focus and Scope in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Tench, Paul. 1996. The Intonation Systems of English. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
Vallduvi, Enric. 1990. The informational component. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Published 1993. New York: Garland Press.
Weil, Henri. 1887. The Order of Words in Ancient Languages Compared with that of Modern Languages. Translated by Charles W Super. Boston: Ginn & Co.Google Scholar
Wells, Bill & Sue Peppé. 1996. Ending up in Ulster: Prosody and turn taking in English dialects. In Prosody in Conversation, Elisabeth Couper-Kuhlen & Margret Selting (eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 101–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Voigtmann, Sophia
2022. Informational aspects of the extraposition of relative clauses. In Language Change at the Interfaces [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 275], ► pp. 235 ff. DOI logo
Berry, Margaret
2021. ‘Actually given’ versus ‘presented as given’ and ‘actually new’ versus ‘presented as new’. English Text Construction 14:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Shukrun-Nagar, Pnina
2021. Constructed general truths against specific political rivals in politicians’ Facebook posts. Journal of Pragmatics 172 ► pp. 79 ff. DOI logo
Bartlett, Tom & Gerard O’Grady
2019. Language characterology and textual dynamics: a crosslinguistic exploration in English and Scottish Gaelic. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 51:2 ► pp. 124 ff. DOI logo
Kimps, Ditte, Kristin Davidse & Gerard O’Grady*
2019. English tag questions eliciting knowledge or action. Functions of Language 26:1 ► pp. 86 ff. DOI logo
O’Grady, Gerard & Tom Bartlett
2019. Linearity and tone in the unfolding of information. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 51:2 ► pp. 192 ff. DOI logo
O’Grady, Gerard
2017. Theme and prosody. English Text Construction 10:2 ► pp. 274 ff. DOI logo
O’Grady, Gerard
2022. A Metafunctional Analysis of Two Televised U.K. Political Interviews with Boris Johnson and Keir Starmer. In Adversarial Political Interviewing, ► pp. 149 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 august 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.