Cover not available
Part of
When Data Challenges Theory: Unexpected and paradoxical evidence in information structure
Edited by Davide Garassino and Daniel Jacob
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 273] 2022
► pp. 57–90

Remarks on information structure marking asymmetries

The epistemological view on the micropragmatic profile of utterances

 | University of Roma Tre | University of Rome “La Sapienza”
Asymmetries in topic-focus marking have extensively been discussed in recent typological contention, with a view to finding an interlinguistically viable definition of information structure units (Lazard 1994, Zimmermann & Onea 2011, Matić & Wedgwood 2013). In this paper I will address Zimmermann & Onea’s (2011) universal outline of focus as information unit indicating the presence of alternatives which are relevant for the interpretation of a sentence. To this view I will oppose an epistemically grounded profile of topic and focus according to which these two information units encode evidential meanings in conversation. Notably, it is argued that while focus encodes a meaning of individual evidentiality, topic bears a meaning of mutual evidentiality (Hintz & Hintz 2017).
Keywords: focus alternatives, illocution, topic, individual evidentiality, mutual evidentiality
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Incongruent topic-focus marking
    • 2.1Ambiguous prosodic signals
    • 2.2Syntactic asymmetries
    • 2.3Asymmetries in morphological marking
  • 3.Information structure, focus and alternatives projection
    • 3.1Zimmermann & Onea’s proposal: Focus, alternatives and possible worlds
    • 3.2Non-exclusive applicability of the alternatives-evoking function to focus
    • 3.3Contextual effects in the construal of alternatives
    • 3.4Uneconomic implications of alternatives’ representation as a precondition for focus interpretation
  • 4.Information structure, illocution and evidentiality
    • 4.1Information structure and illocutionary force
  • 5.The evidential perspective on information structure
    • 5.1Topic and focus as pragmatic markers of evidentiality
    • 5.2Utterances’ illocution and the evidentiality of information structure
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 22 February 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.273.02mas
References (99)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2015. Evidentials: Their links with other grammatical categories. Linguistic Typology 19(2): 239–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Austin, John L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bach, Kent. 1994. Conversational impliciture. Mind & Language 9: 124–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, Franz. 1900. Sketch of the Kwakiutl language. American Anthropologist 2: 708–721. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1910. Kwakiutl. An Illustrative Sketch. Washington: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Bocci, Giuliano. 2013. The Syntax-Prosody Interface. A Cartographic Perspective with Evidence from Italian. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2016. (Contrastive) Topic. In The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds), 64–85. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carpenter, Lawrence K. 1982. Ecuadorian Quechua: Descriptive Sketch and Variation. PhD dissertation, University of Florida.
Casielles-Suárez, Eugenia. 2003. Left-dislocated structures in Spanish. Hispania 86(2): 326–338. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and topics and point of view. In Subject and Topic, Charles Li (ed), 25–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. & Nichols, Joanna (eds). 1986. Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Choi, Hye-Won. 1997. Information structure, phrase structure and their interface. In Proceedings of the LFG97 Conference, Miriam Butt & Tracy H. King (eds), 1–16. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cresti, Emanuela. 1999. Force illocutoire, articulation topic-comment et contours prosodiques en Italien parlé. Faits de Langues 13: 168–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Corpus di italiano parlato. Introduzione e campioni (Vols. 1–2). Firenze: Accademia della Crusca.Google Scholar
. 2012. The definition of focus in Language into Act Theory (LAcT). In Pragmatics and Prosody: Illocution, Modality, Information Patterning and Speech Annotation, Heliana Mello, Alessandro Panunzi & Tommaso Raso (eds), 39–82. Firenze: Firenze University Press.Google Scholar
. 2018. The illocution-prosody relationship and the information pattern in spontaneous speech according to the Language into Act theory (L-AcT). Linguistik Online 88: 33–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Cesare, Anna-Maria. This volume. To be or not to be focus adverbials? A corpus-driven study of It. anche in spontaneous spoken Italian. In When Data Challenges Theory. Unexpected and Paradoxical Evidence in Information Structure, Davide Garassino & Daniel Jacob (eds). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo
De Haan, Ferdinand. 1999. Evidentiality and epistemic modality: setting boundaries. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, [URL] (24 March 2021).
Diessel, Holger & Hetterle, Katja. 2011. Causal clauses: A cross-linguistic investigation of their structure, meaning and use. In Linguistic Universals and Language Variation, Peter Siemund (ed), 21–52. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donabédian, Anaïd. 2001. Towards a semasiological account of evidentials: An enunciative approach of -er in Modern Western Armenian. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 421–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Face, Timothy L. 2001. Focus and early peak alignment in Spanish intonation. Probus, 13(2): 223–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Face, Timothy L. & D’Imperio, Mariapaola. 2005. Reconsidering a focal typology: Evidence from Spanish and Italian. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 17(2): 271–289.Google Scholar
Faller, Martina T. 2002. Semantics and Pragmatics of Evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. PhD dissertation, University of Stanford.
Fanselow, Gisbert, Lenertová, Denisa & Weskott, Thomas. 2008. Studies on the acceptability of object movement to Spec, CP. In The Discourse Potential of Underspecified Structures, Anita Steube (ed), 413–438. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Feldhausen, Ingo. 2016. The relation between prosody and syntax: The case of different types of left-dislocations in Spanish. In Interdisciplinary Approaches to Intonational Grammar in Ibero-Romance Intonation, Meghan Armstrong, Nicholas Henriksen & Maria del Mar Vanrell (eds), 153–180. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fortescue, Michael. 2003. Evidentiality in West Greenlandic. A case of scattered coding. In Studies in Evidentiality, Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Richard M. W. Dixon (eds), 291–306. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A. 2001. Evidentiality, authority, responsibility, and entitlement in English conversation. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 11(2): 167–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara. 2000. The Syntax-Phonology Interface in Focus and Topic Constructions in Italian. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara & Hinterhölzl, Roland. 2007. Types of Topics in German and Italian. In On Information Structure, Meaning and Form, Susanne Winkler & Kerstin Schwabe (eds), 87–116. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frota, Sónia. 2002. The prosody of focus: A case-study with cross-linguistic implications. Talk presented at the Speech Prosody Conference, Aix-en-Provence, 2002.Google Scholar
Gagliardi, Gloria, Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo & Tamburini, Fabio. 2012. La prominenza in italiano: demarcazione più che culminazione. In Atti del VIII° Convegno nazionale dell’Associazione Italiana Scienze della Voce (AISV), Mauro Falcone & Andrea Paoloni (eds), 255–270. Roma: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
Garassino, Davide. 2019. French cleft sentences across genres. What is (not) prototypical? Handout for the Workshop When Data Challenges Theory: Non-Prototypical, Unexpected and Paradoxical Evidence in the Field of Information Structure, Freiburg im Breisgau, 15–16 February 2019.Google Scholar
Garassino, Davide & Jacob, Daniel. This volume. When data challenges theory: The analysis of information structure and its paradoxes. In When Data Challenges Theory. Unexpected and Paradoxical Evidence in Information Structure, Davide Garassino & Daniel Jacob (eds). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo
Givón, Talmy. 2002. Bio-linguistics. The Santa Barbara Lectures. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, Paul H. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 3: Speech Acts, Peter Cole & Jerry Morgan (eds), 113–128. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grzech, Karolina Z. 2011. Two aspects of common ground management: Information structure and epistemic meaning in Tena Kichwa. Talk presented at the V Conference on Language Documentation and Linguistic Theory, London.Google Scholar
2016. Discourse Enclitics in Tena Kichwa. A Corpus-based Account of Information Structure and Epistemic Meaning. PhD dissertation, University of London.
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene R. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts.
Heritage, John. 2012. Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1): 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hintz, Daniel J. & Hintz, Diane M. 2017. The evidential category of mutual knowledge in Quechua. Lingua 186–187: 88–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hjelmslev, Louis T. 1970 [1961]. Prolegomena to a Theory of Language. Wisconsin: University Press [Translated edition by Francis J. Whitfield].Google Scholar
Horvath, Julia. 1986. Focus in the Theory of Grammar and the Syntax of Hungarian. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Jacob, Daniel. 2015. Anaphorische Spaltsätze im Französischen: Grammatik-Text-Rhetorik. In Informationsstrukturen in Kontrast: Strukturen, Kompositionen und Strategien, Séverine Adam, Daniel Jacob & Michael Schecker (eds), 101–122. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Jasinskaja, Katja. 2016. Information structure in Slavic. In The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds), 709–732. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [URL]Google Scholar
Ježek, Elisabetta. 2005. Lessico. Classi di parole, strutture, combinazioni. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Kamio, Akio. 1997. Territory of Information. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karssenberg, Lena & Lahousse, Karen. 2018. The information structure of French il y a clefts and c’est clefts: A corpus-based analysis. Linguistics 56(3): 513–548. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kempchinsky, Paula. 2008. How much structure does the left periphery need? Poster presented at Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages 38, April 2008.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2007. Basic Notions of Information Structure. In Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 6, Caroline Féry, Gisbert Fanselow & Manfred Krifka (eds), 13–55. ISIS: Working Papers of the SFB 632.Google Scholar
. 2017. Assertions, judgements, epistemic and evidentials. Talk presented at the workshop Speech Acts: Meanings, Uses, Syntactic and Prosodic Realizations, Leibniz-ZAS Berlin, May 29–31, 2017.Google Scholar
Lahousse, Karen. This volume. Is focus a root phenomenon? In When Data Challenges Theory. Unexpected and Paradoxical Evidence in Information Structure, Davide Garassino & Daniel Jacob (eds). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo
Lahousse, Karen & Borremans, Marijke. 2014. The distribution of functional-pragmatic types of clefts in adverbial clauses. Linguistics 52(3): 793–836. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1984. Performative subordinate clauses. Berkeley Linguistics Society 10: 472–480. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 1994. L’actance. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Lee, Chungmin. 2006. Contrastive (Predicate) Topic, intonation, and scalar meanings. In Topic and Focus: Crosslinguistic Perspectives on Meaning and Intonation, Chungmin Lee, Matt Gordon & Daniel Büring (eds), 151–175. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Lehiste, Ilse. 1970. Suprasegmentals. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lenertová, Denisa & Junghanns, Uwe. 2006. Fronted focus exponents with maximal focus interpretation in Czech. In On Information Structure, Meaning and Form, Kerstin Schwabe & Susanne Winkler (eds), 347–363. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levy, Roger. 2008. Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 106(3): 1126–1177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo. 1996. A simple test for theme and rheme in the clause complex. Language Sciences 17(4): 357–378. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Grammatica funzionale delle avverbiali italiane. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar
. 2009. La struttura informativa. Forma e funzione negli enunciati linguistici. Carocci: Roma.Google Scholar
. 2014. The topologic hypothesis of prominence as a cue to information structure in Italian. In Discourse Segmentation in Romance Languages [Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 250], Salvador Pons Bordería (ed), 219–241. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. This volume. Distinguishing psychological Given/New from linguistic Topic/Focus makes things clearer. In When Data Challenges Theory. Unexpected and Paradoxical Evidence in Information Structure, Davide Garassino & Daniel Jacob (eds). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo
Masia, Viviana. 2017a. Sociobiological Bases of Information Structure. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017b. On the Evidential Status of Presupposition and Assertion. International Journal of Linguistics 9(4): 134–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matić, Dejan & Wedgwood, Daniel. 2013. The meanings of focus: The significance of an interpretation-based category in cross-linguistic analysis. Journal of Linguistics 49(1): 127–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michelas, Amandine & German, James S. 2019. Focus marking and prosodic boundary strength in French. Phonetica 77: 244–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mushin, Ilana. 2001. Evidentiality and Epistemological Stance. Narrative Retelling. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murray, Sarah E. 2010. Evidentiality and the Structure of Speech Acts. PhD Dissertation, The State University of New Jersey.Google Scholar
2017. The Semantics of Evidentials [Oxford Studies in Semantics and Pragmatics]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nakanishi, Kimiko. 2008. Prosody and scope interpretations of the topic marker ‘wa’ in Japanese. In Topic and Focus. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy (Vol. 82), Chungmin Lee, Matt Gordon & Daniel Büring (eds), 177–193. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan. 2001. Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 383–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ohta, Amy S. 1991. Evidentiality and politeness in Japanese. Issues in Applied Linguistics 2(2): 211–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olarrea, Antxon. 2012. Word Order and Information Structure. In The Handbook of Hispanic Linguistics, José Ignacio Hualde, Antxon Olarrea & Erin O’Rourke (eds), 603–628. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Puglielli, Annarita & Frascarelli, Mara. 2008. L’analisi linguistica: dai dati alla teoria. Cesena-Roma: Caissa Italia.Google Scholar
Riester, Arndt & Baumann, Stefan. 2013. Focus triggers and focus types from a corpus perspectives. Dialogue and Discourse 4(2): 215–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with Focus. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts.
. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. Focus. In Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, Shalom Lappin & Chris Fox (eds), 1271–1298. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rosemeyer, Malte, Jacob, Daniel & Konieczny, Lars. This volume. How alternatives are created: Specialized background knowledge affects the interpretation of clefts in discourse. In When Data Challenges Theory. Unexpected and Paradoxical Evidence in Information Structure, Davide Garassino & Daniel Jacob (eds). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo
Saeed, John. 2004. The focus structure of Somali. In RRG2004: The International Role and Reference Grammar Conference, Brian Nolan (ed), 258–279. Dublin: Institute of Technology Blanchardstown.Google Scholar
Sánchez, Liliana. 2010. The Morphology and Syntax of Topic and Focus: Minimalist Inquiries in the Quechua Periphery. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saussure de, Ferdinand. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Schumacher, Petra B. 2012. Context in neurolinguistics: Time-course data from electrophysiology. In What is a Context? Linguistic Approaches and Challenges, Rita Finkbeiner, Jörg Meibauer, & Petra B. Schumacher (eds), 33–53. Amsterdam: Jonh Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1985. Intonation, stress and meaning. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkley Linguistics Society, Mary Niepokuj (ed), 491–504. California: Berkeley Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Shireman, Joshua. 2012. Focus in Ecuadorian Quechua. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 33: 16–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simons, Mandy, Beaver, David, Roberts, Craige & Tonhauser, Judith. 2017. The Best Question: Explaining the projection behavior of factives. Discourse Processes 54(3): 187–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweller, John. 2003. Evolution of human cognitive architecture. In The Psychology of Learning and Motivations: Advances in Research and Theory 43, Brian H. Ross (ed), 215–266. Elsevier Science: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tamburini, Fabio. 2007. Prominence (Versione 1.0), University of Bologna.Google Scholar
Titov, Elena. 2019. Morphosyntactic encoding of information structure in Akan. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1): 27. DOI logo
Tosco, Mauro. 2002. A whole lotta’ focusin’ goin’ on: Information packaging in Somali texts. Studies in African Linguistics 31(1–2): 27–53.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2016. Focus, intonation, and tonal height. In The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds), 463–482. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vallduví, Enric. 1995. Structural properties of information packaging in Catalan. In Discourse Configurational Languages, Katalin É. Kiss (ed), 122–152. Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Willett, Thomas. 1988. A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language 12: 51–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte & Onea, Edgar. 2011. Focus marking and focus interpretation. Lingua 121: 1651–1670. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Biasio, Marco & Dario Del Fante
2024. Once known, always known. Turn-final sai in North-East regional Italian. Folia Linguistica DOI logo
Garassino, Davide & Daniel Jacob
2022. When data challenges theory. In When Data Challenges Theory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 273], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Lahousse, Karen
2022. Is focus a root phenomenon?. In When Data Challenges Theory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 273], ► pp. 147 ff. DOI logo
Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo
2022. Distinguishing psychological Given/New from linguistic Topic/Focus makes things clearer. In When Data Challenges Theory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 273], ► pp. 39 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 december 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.