Information structure and referential givenness/newness: How much belongs in the grammar?

This paper is concerned with such concepts as `topic`, `focus` and `cognitive status of discourse referents`, which have been included under the label `information structure`, as they relate in some sense to the distribution of given and new information. It addresses the question of which information structural properties are best accounted for by grammatical constraints and which can be attributed to non-linguistic constraints on the way information is processed and communicated. Two logically independent senses of given-new information are distinguished, one referential and the other relational. I argue that some phenomena pertaining to each of these senses must be accounted for in the grammar, while others are pragmatic effects that do not have to be represented in the grammar, since they result from interaction of the language system with general pragmatic principles that constrain inferential processes involved in language production and understanding.

[1]  Enric Vallduví,et al.  The Informational Component , 1990 .

[2]  E. Engdahl,et al.  The linguistic realization of information packaging , 2013 .

[3]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation , 1969 .

[4]  Jeanette K. Gundel.  Topic, Focus, and the Grammar-Pragmatics Interface , 1999 .

[5]  Knud Lambrecht,et al.  Information structure and sentence form , 1994 .

[6]  Ray Jackendoff,et al.  Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar , 1972 .

[7]  Nancy Hedberg,et al.  Discourse pragmatics and cleft sentences in English , 1990 .

[8]  Kari Fraurud,et al.  Definiteness and the Processing of Noun Phrases in Natural Discourse , 1990, J. Semant..

[9]  Irene Heim,et al.  The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases : a dissertation , 1982 .

[10]  W. Chafe.  Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing , 1996 .

[11]  Nancy Hedberg,et al.  The Referential Status of Clefts. , 2000 .

[12]  Nomi Erteschik-Shir,et al.  The dynamics of focus structure , 1997 .

[13]  Ron Zacharski,et al.  Definite descriptions and cognitive status in English: why accommodation is unnecessary , 2001, English Language and Linguistics.

[14]  James F. Allen,et al.  Resolving Demonstrative Anaphora in the TRAINS93 Corpus , 1998 .

[15]  Jeanette K. Gundel.  Relevance theory meets the givenness hierarchy: an account of inferrables , 1996 .

[16]  Jeanette K. Gundel,et al.  Cognitive Status and the form of Referring Expressions in Discourse , 1993, The Oxford Handbook of Reference.

[17]  Z. Harris,et al.  Foundations of language , 1941 .

[18]  P. Sgall,et al.  Topic, focus and generative semantics , 1973 .

[19]  Mira Ariel.  Referring and accessibility , 1988, Journal of Linguistics.

[20]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation by Noam Chomsky and other essays , 1970 .

[21]  Jeanette K. Gundel.  The Role of Topic and Comment in Linguistic Theory , 1988 .

[22]  Bonnie L. Webber,et al.  Structure and Ostension in the Interpretation of Discourse Deixis , 1991, ArXiv.

[23]  Jeanette K. Gundel,et al.  The Role of Context in Pronominal Reference to Higher Order Entities in English and Norwegian , 1999, CONTEXT.

[24]  Ivan A. Sag,et al.  Book Reviews: Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar and German in Head-driven Phrase-structure Grammar , 1996, CL.

[25]  A. Svoboda,et al.  Functional sentence perspective and intensional logic , 1987 .

[26]  Ellen F. Prince,et al.  Toward a taxonomy of given-new information , 1981 .

[27]  Michael Hegarty,et al.  Cognitive Status, Information Structure, and Pronominal Reference to Clausally Introduced Entities , 2003, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[28]  D. Sperber,et al.  Relevance: Communication and Cognition , 1989 .

[29]  Bonnie Webber,et al.  Discourse Deixis and Discourse Processing , 1988 .

[30]  Georgia M. Green,et al.  The structure of CONTEXT: The representation of pragmatic restrictions in HPSG , 1997 .

[31]  Z. Harris,et al.  Foundations of Language , 1940 .

[32]  T. Reinhart.  Pragmatics and Linguistics: an analysis of Sentence Topics , 1981, Philosophica.

[33]  E. Prince.  The ZPG Letter: Subjects, Definiteness, and Information-status , 1992 .

[34]  Georgia M. Green,et al.  The Nature of Pragmatic Information , 1999 .

[35]  Ron Zacharski,et al.  On the Generation and Interpretation of Demonstrative Expressions , 1988, COLING.

[36]  Renata Vieira,et al.  A Corpus-based Investigation of Definite Description Use , 1997, CL.

[37]  P. Sgall.  Functional sentence perspective , 1996 .

[38]  E. Prince.  A COMPARISON OF WH-CLEFTS AND IT-CLEFTS IN DISCOURSE , 1978 .

[39]  Betty J. Birner,et al.  Information status and noncanonical word order in English , 1998 .

[40]  M. Halliday.  NOTES ON TRANSITIVITY AND THEME IN ENGLISH. PART 2 , 1967 .

[41]  Ivan A. Sag,et al.  Referential and quantificational indefinites , 1982 .

[42]  Jeanette K. Gundel.  Universals of topic-comment structure , 1988 .

[43]  Jeanette K. Gundel,et al.  INFORMATION STRUCTURE AND THE ACCESSIBILITY OF CLAUSALLY INTRODUCED REFERENTS , 2001 .

[44]  Petr Sgall,et al.  The Meaning Of The Sentence In Its Semantic And Pragmatic Aspects , 1986 .