1887
The dynamicity of communication below, around and above the clause
  • ISSN 1874-8767
  • E-ISSN: 1874-8775

Abstract

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.

This article is available under a CC BY 4.0 license

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/etc.9.1.02ogr
2016-06-20
2019-10-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. 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. www.isca-speech.org/archive/eurospeech_2003 (Last accessed on28 December 2015).
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Baumann, Stefan & Martine Grice
    2006 The intonation of accessibility. Journal of Pragmatics38: 1636–1657. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.03.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.03.017 [Google Scholar]
  3. Boersma, Paul & David Weenick
    . n.d.Praat doing Phonetics by Computer. Computer programme Version 5.3.52.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Branigan, Holly P. , Martin J. Pickering & Mikihiro Tanaka
    2008 Contributions of animacy to grammatical function assignment and word order during production. Lingua118: 172–189. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.003 [Google Scholar]
  5. Brazil, David
    1997The Communicative Value of Intonation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Chafe, Wallace
    1987 Cognitive constraints on information flow. InCoherence and Grounding in Discourse, Russell Tomlin (ed.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 21–51. doi: 10.1075/tsl.11.03cha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.11.03cha [Google Scholar]
  7. 1994Discourse, Consciousness and Time. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Croft, William. S
    1995 Intonation units and grammatical structure. Linguistics71: 490–532. doi: 10.1515/ling.1995.33.5.839
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1995.33.5.839 [Google Scholar]
  9. Cruttenden, Alan
    1997Intonation, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139166973
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166973 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2006 The de-accenting of old information: A cognitive universal?InPragmatic Organisation in the Languages of Europe, Giuliano Bernini & Marcia L. Schwartz (eds). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 311–358. doi: 10.1515/9783110892222.311
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110892222.311 [Google Scholar]
  11. Daneš, František
    1972 Order of elements and sentence intonation. InIntonation, Dwight Bolinger (ed.). London: Penguin, 216–232.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Davidse, Kristin
    1987 M. A. K. Halliday’s Functional Grammar and the Prague School. InFunctionalism in Linguistics, René Dirven & Vilém Fried . (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 39–79. doi: 10.1075/llsee.20.04dav
    https://doi.org/10.1075/llsee.20.04dav [Google Scholar]
  13. Dryer, Matthew S
    2013 Order of subject, object and verb. InThe World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds). Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. wals.info/chapter/81 (Last accessed on9 November 2015).
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Firbas, Jan
    1974 Some aspects of the Czechoslovak approach to the problems of functional sentence perspective. InPapers on FSP, František Daneš(ed.). Prague: Academia Press, 11–37. doi: 10.1515/9783111676524.11
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111676524.11 [Google Scholar]
  15. 1989 Degrees of communicative dynamism and degrees of prosodic prominence weight. Brno Studies in English18: 21–66.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 1992Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511597817
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597817 [Google Scholar]
  17. 1995 Retrievability span in Functional Sentence Perspective. Brno Studies in English21: 17–45.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Fletcher, Janet , Lesley Stirling , Ilana Muhin & Roger Wales
    2002 Intonational rises and dialog acts in the Australian English map task. Language and Speech45 (3): 226–253. doi: 10.1177/00238309020450030201
    https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309020450030201 [Google Scholar]
  19. Geluykens, Ronald
    1989 Information structure in English conversation: The Given-New distinction revisited. Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics3: 129–147.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Givón, Talmy
    1983 Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.3 [Google Scholar]
  21. 1990Syntax: An Introduction, Vol. 2. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.syn2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.syn2 [Google Scholar]
  22. Gundel, Jeanette , Nancy Hedberg & Ron Zacharski
    1993 Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language69 (2): 274–307. doi: 10.2307/416535
    https://doi.org/10.2307/416535 [Google Scholar]
  23. Gussenhoven, Carlos
    2004 The Phonology of Tone and Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511616983
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616983 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hajičová, Eva & Peter Sgall
    1987 The ordering principle. Journal of Pragmatics11: 435–454. doi: 10.1016/0378–2166(87)90088–9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378–2166(87)90088–9 [Google Scholar]
  25. Halliday, M.A.K
    1967Intonation and Grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783111357447
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111357447 [Google Scholar]
  26. 1970A Course in Spoken English: Intonation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Halliday, M.A.K. & William S. Greaves
    2008Intonation in the Grammar of British English. Equinox: London.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Halliday, M.A.K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen
    2014An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 4th edition. Abingdon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Kaltenböck, Gunther
    2009 Initial I Think: Main or Comment Clause. Discourse and Interaction2 (1): 49–70.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Ladd, D. Robert
    2008Intonation Phonology, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511808814
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808814 [Google Scholar]
  31. Lambrecht, Knud
    1994 Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  32. Lehman, Christina
    1977 A re-analysis of Given-ness: Stress in discourse. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 13: 316–324.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Loock, Rudy
    2013 Extending further and refining Prince’s taxonomy of given/new information: A case study of non-restrictive, relevance-oriented structures. Pragmatics23 (1): 69–91. doi: 10.1075/prag.23.1.04loo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.23.1.04loo [Google Scholar]
  34. Mathesius, Vilém
    1975A Functional Analysis of Present Day English on a General Linguistic Basis. The Hague: Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110813296
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110813296 [Google Scholar]
  35. McGregor, William
    1997Semiotic Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Miller, Jim
    2006 Focus in the languages of Europe. InPragmatic Organisation of Discourse in the Languages of Europe, Giuliano Bernini & Marcia L. Schwartz (eds). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 121–124. doi: 10.1515/9783110892222.121
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110892222.121 [Google Scholar]
  37. Pierrehumbert, Janet & Julia Hirschberg
    1990 The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. InIntentions in Communication, Philip R. Cohen , Jerry Morgan & Martha E. Pollack (eds). Cambridge: MIT Press, 271–311.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Prince, Ellen
    1981 Toward a taxonomy of given–new information. InRadical Pragmatics, Peter Cole , (ed.). New York: Academic Press, 223–255.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 1992 Subjects, definiteness and information status. InDiscourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-raising Text, William. C. Mann & Sandra A. Thompson (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 295–325. doi: 10.1075/pbns.16.12pri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.16.12pri [Google Scholar]
  40. Svoboda, Aleš
    1981 Two chapters on scene. Brno studies in English14: 81–92.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 1983 Thematic elements. Brno studies in English32: 49–85.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Taglicht, Joseph
    1984Message and Emphasis: On Focus and Scope in English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Tench, Paul
    1996The Intonation Systems of English. London: Cassell.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Vallduvi, Enric
    1990 The informational component. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Published 1993. New York: Garland Press.
  45. Weil, Henri
    1887The Order of Words in Ancient Languages Compared with that of Modern Languages. Translated by Charles W Super . Boston: Ginn & Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Wells, Bill & Sue Peppé
    1996 Ending up in Ulster: Prosody and turn taking in English dialects. InProsody in Conversation, Elisabeth Couper-Kuhlen & Margret Selting (eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 101–130. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511597862.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597862.005 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/etc.9.1.02ogr
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): communicative dynamism , information structure , intonation , referential distance and word order
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error