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. 91–112

Alternatives to information structure

| University of Münster
The paper questions the assumption that information structure is a necessary component of communication. It is shown that there is no language-independent evidence that communication is based on regular alternation of presupposed and focused information, and that sentences necessarily convey information about topics. The argumentation to this effect is circular and based on contextual determinism and reification of interpretative effects. If we dispose of these fallacies, the need to posit a separate information-structural level of meaning disappears. This opens up a competely new research paradigm in discourse organisation which takes into account the practically infinite variability of natural languages, psycholinguistic evidence, social and information-transmitting nature of communication, and many other factors.
Keywords: information structure, focus, topic, interpretation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Basic tenets of information structure
  • 3.Brief critical assessment
  • 4.Alternatives to information structure
  • 5.Summary
  • Abbreviations
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 22 February 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.273.03mat
References (54)
References
Abbott, Barbara. 2000. Presuppositions as nonassertions. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 1419–1437. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Adamou, Evangelia, Haude, Katharina & Vanhove, Martine (eds). 2018. Information Structure in Lesser-Described Languages: Studies in Prosody and Syntax. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2007. Typology in the 21st century: major current developments. Linguistic Typology 11: 239–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina & Schumacher, Petra. 2016. Towards a neurobiology of information structure. In The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds), 581–598. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cowles, Heidi Wind. 2012. The Psychology of Information Structure. In The Expression of Information Structure, Manfred Krifka & Renate Musan (eds), 287–317. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2010. Naive vs. expert intuitions: An empirical study of acceptability judgments. The Linguistic Review 27: 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delin, Judy & Oberlander, Jon. 1995. Syntactic constraints on discourse structure: the case of it-clefts. Linguistics 33: 465–500. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dickins, James. 2020. Thematic Structure and Para-Syntax: Arabic as a Case Study. Abingdon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dimroth, Christine, Andorno, Cecilia, Benazzo, Sandra & Verhagen, Josje. 2010. Given claims about new topics. How Romance and Germanic speakers link changed and maintained information in narrative discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 3328–3344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
El Zarka, Dina & Schuppler, Barbara. 2018. On the interplay of pragmatic and formal factors in the prosodic realization of themes in Egyptian Arabic. Grazer Linguistische Studien 90: 33–106.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 2007. Information Structure: The Syntax-Discourse Interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline & Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2016. The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Féry, Caroline & Samek-Lodovici, Vieri. 2006. Focus projection and prosodic prominence in nested foci. Language 82: 131–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garassino, Davide. 2016. Using cleft sentences in Italian and English. A multifactorial analysis. In Current Issues in Italian, Romance, and Germanic Non-Canonical Word Orders, Anna-Maria De Cesare & Davide Garassino (eds), 181–204. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Hanks, Peter. 2015. Propositional Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, Katharina & Zimmermann, Malte. 2012. Focus Marking in Bura: Semantic Uniformity Matches Syntactic Heterogeneity. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30: 1061–1108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hatcher, Ann Granville. 1956. Theme and Underlying Question. Two Studies of Spanish Word Order. New York: Linguistic Circle of New York.Google Scholar
Hedberg, Nancy. 2006. Topic-Focus Controversies. In The Architecture of Focus, Valéria Molnár & Susanne Winkler (eds), 373–397. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heller, Benedikt, Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt & Grafmiller, Jason. 2017. Stability and fluidity in syntactic variation world-wide: the genitive alternation across varieties of English. Journal of English Linguistics 45: 3–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heusinger, Klaus von. 1999. Intonation and Information Structure. Habilitationsschrift, University of Konstanz. [URL] (06 January 2020).
Jakobson, Roman. 1960. Linguistics and Poetics. In Style in Language, Thomas Sebeok (ed), 350–377. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jaspers, Danny & Seuren, Pieter A. M. 2016. The Square of opposition in Catholic hands: A chapter in the history of 20th-Century logic. Logique & Analyse 233: 1–35.Google Scholar
Kaiser, Elsi. 2016. Information structure and language comprehension: Insights from psycholinguistics. In The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds), 523–540. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kim, Ilkyu. 2015. Is Korean -(n)un a topic marker? On the nature of -(n)un and its relation to information structure. Lingua 154: 87–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Can Korean -(n)un mark (contrastive) focus? Linguistic Sciences 56: 105–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred & Musan, Renate. 2012. The Expression of Information Structure. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kruijff-Korbayová, Ivana & Steedman, Mark. 2003. Discourse and information structure. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 12: 249–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lee, Chungmin, Kiefer, Ferenc & Krifka, Manfred (eds). 2017. Contrastiveness in Information Structure, Alternatives and Scalar Implicatures [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 91]. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matić, Dejan. 2009. On the variability of focus meanings. In Current Issues in Unity and Diversity of Languages. Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Linguists, Seoul 2008, 10. Seoul: Linguistic Society of Korea.Google Scholar
. 2014. Deriving information structure from field data. In Methodological Issues in the Study of Information Structure, Dina El Zarka & Steffen Heidinger (eds), 25–42. Graz: Universität Graz.Google Scholar
. 2015. Information structure in linguistics. In International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn., James D. Wright (ed), 95–99. Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matić, Dejan & Nikolaeva, Irina. 2018. From polarity focus to salient polarity: From things to processes. In The Grammatical Realization of Polarity Contrast. Theoretical, Empirical, and Typological Approaches, Christine Dimroth & Stefan Sudhoff (eds), 9–53. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matić, Dejan & Wedgwood, Daniel. 2013. The meaning of focus: The significance of an interpretation-based category in cross-linguistic analysis. Journal of Linguistics 49: 127–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mercier, Hugo & Sperber, Dan. 2017. The Enigma of Reason. A New Theory of Human Understanding. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Molnár, Valéria, Egerland, Verner & Winkler, Susanne. 2019. The Architecture of Topic. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nerlich, Brigitte & Clarke, David. 1996. Language, Action and Context: The Early History of Pragmatics in Europe and America. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ozerov, Pavel. 2015. Information structure without topic and focus: Differential object marking in Burmese. Studies in Language 39: 386–423. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Tracing the sources of Information Structure: Towards the study of interactional management of information. Journal of Pragmatics 138: 77–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Potts, Christopher. 2007. The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics 33: 165–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1982. Pragmatics and linguistics: an analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27: 53–94.Google Scholar
Riester, Arndt, Brunetti, Lisa & De Kuthy, Kordula. 2018. Annotation guidelines for Questions under Discussion and information structure. In Information Structure in Lesser-Described Languages: Studies in Syntax and Prosody, Evangelia Adamou, Katharina Haude & Martine Vanhove (eds), 403–443. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Riesberg, Sonja, Shiohara, Asako & Utsumi, Atsuko. 2018. Perspectives on Information Structure in Austronesian Languages. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Schindler, Samuel, Drożdżowicz, Anna & Brøcker, Karen (eds). 2020. Linguistic Intuitions: Evidence and Method. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwabe, Kerstin & Winkler, Susanne (eds). 2007. On Information Structure, Meaning and Form: Generalizations across Languages. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seuren, Pieter A. M. 1998. Western Linguistics: An Historical Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. The cognitive ontogenesis of predicate logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 55: 499–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sprouse, Jon, Schütze, Carson T. & Almeida, Diogo. 2013. A comparison of informal and formal acceptability judgments using a random sample from Linguistic Inquiry 2001–2010. Lingua 134: 219–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 1974. Pragmatic Presuppositions. In Semantics and Philosophy, Milton Munitz & Peter Under (eds), 197–213. New York: New York University Press,Google Scholar
. 2002. Common Ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 701–721. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Wal, Jenneke. 2016. Diagnosing focus. Studies in Language 40: 259–301. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wagner, Michael. 2016. Information structure and production planning. In The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds), 541–561. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wedgwood, Daniel. 2005. Shifting the Focus. From Static Structures to Dynamic Interpretation. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte & Onea, Edgar. 2011. Focus Marking and Focus Interpretation. Lingua 121: 1651–1670. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Ozerov, Pavel
2023. From sentential syntax to syntax of interaction. Journal of Speech Sciences 12 ► pp. e023001 ff. DOI logo
De Cesare, Anna-Maria
2022. To be or not to be focus adverbials?. In When Data Challenges Theory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 273], ► pp. 204 ff. DOI logo
Garassino, Davide & Daniel Jacob
2022. Introduction. When data challenges theory. In When Data Challenges Theory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 273], ► pp. 2 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 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.