1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Functions of Language
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of The ‘idea’ in the one-new-idea constraint
PDF
EPUB

Abstract

This paper offers a conceptual clarification and an operationalization of a classic functionalist generalization: the one-new-idea constraint (Chafe 1982, 1987, 1994). While often referenced, this constraint has not, to date, been sufficiently spelled-out or made sufficiently precise to become testable. This paper aims to fill this gap by, first, differentiating the concept of into discourse-level and lexical-semantic ideahood. Secondly, we propose that the one-new-idea constraint () should be investigated in Chafe’s (1994) original encompassing sense, where not only referents, but also states and events are tracked. The third clarification applies to the unit of application: As a constraint on speech, this should be the intonation unit as suggested by Chafe, rather than the clause or sentence as suggested elsewhere (e.g. Givón 1990). Based on these conceptual refinements, we develop an operationalization for testing the : the (Testing the One-New-Idea Constraint) annotation scheme. This scheme not only allows for in-depth investigation into the robustness of the , but also into information flow on both discourse as well as lexical-semantic levels more broadly. thus serves as a new tool for more holistic research into information flow.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/fol.26012.rei
2026-06-01
2026-06-17

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/fol.26012.rei
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/10.1075/fol.26012.rei/fol.26012.rei.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/fol.26012.rei&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Auer, Peter
    2005 Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text — Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse(). –. 10.1515/text.2005.25.1.7
     https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2005.25.1.7 [Google Scholar]
  2. 2024 Online-Syntax: Eine Einführung in die Analyse gesprochener Sprache. Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑662‑68611‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-68611-9 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baddeley, Alan D.
    2007 Working memory, thought, and action. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198528012.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198528012.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bögels, Sara & Francisco Torreira
    2015 Listeners use intonational phrase boundaries to project turn ends in spoken interaction. Journal of Phonetics. –. 10.1016/j.wocn.2015.04.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2015.04.004 [Google Scholar]
  5. Chafe, Wallace
    1982 Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature. InDeborah Tannen (ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy, –. Norwood, NJ.: Ablex.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. 1992 Information flow in speaking and writing. InPamela A. Downing, Susan D. Lima & Michael Noonan (eds.), The linguistics of literacy, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.21.05cha
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.21.05cha [Google Scholar]
  7. 1994 Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 2018 Thought-based linguistics. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/9781108367493
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108367493 [Google Scholar]
  9. Chand, Vineeta, Kathleen Baynes, Lisa M. Bonnici & Sarah Tomaszewski Farias
    2012 A rubric for extracting idea density from oral language samples. Current Protocols in Neuroscience(). 10.1002/0471142301.ns1005s58
     https://doi.org/10.1002/0471142301.ns1005s58 [Google Scholar]
  10. Comrie, Bernard
    1989 Some general properties of reference-tracking systems. InDoug Arnold, Martin Atkinson, Jacques Durand, Claire Grover & Louisa Sadler (eds.). Essays on grammatical theory and universal grammar, –. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Creissels, Denis
    2020 Remarks on the grammaticalization of identificational clefts. Linguistic Discovery(). –.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Croft, William
    1995 Intonation units and grammatical structure. Linguistics(). –. 10.1515/ling.1995.33.5.839
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1995.33.5.839 [Google Scholar]
  13. Cruse, Alan
    2000 Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Cruttenden, Alan
    1997 Intonation, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9781139166973
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166973 [Google Scholar]
  15. Dachkovsky, Svetlana, Christina Healy & Wendy Sandler
    2013 Visual intonation in two sign languages. Phonology(). –. 10.1017/S0952675713000122
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675713000122 [Google Scholar]
  16. Damron, Rebecca L.
    2004 Prosodic schemas: Evidence from Urdu and Pakistani English. InCarol Lynn Moder & Aida Martinovic-Zic (eds.), Discourse across languages and cultures, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.68.04dam
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.68.04dam [Google Scholar]
  17. Degand, Liesbeth & Simon, Anne-Catherine
    2009 On identifying basic discourse units in speech: Theoretical and empirical issues. Discours: Revue de linguistique, psycholinguistique et informatique. online. 10.4000/discours.5852
     https://doi.org/10.4000/discours.5852 [Google Scholar]
  18. Du Bois, John W.
    1987 The discourse basis of ergativity. Language(). –. 10.2307/415719
     https://doi.org/10.2307/415719 [Google Scholar]
  19. Foley, William A.
    2010 Events and serial verb constructions. InMengistu Amberber, Brett Baker & Mark Harvey (eds.), Complex predicates: Cross-linguistic perspectives on event structure, –. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511712234.005
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511712234.005 [Google Scholar]
  20. Garnier, Simon, Noam Ross, Robert Rudis, Antônio P. Camargo, Marco Sciaini & Cédric Scherer
    2024 viridis(Lite) — Colorblind-Friendly Color Maps for R. viridis package version 0.6.5.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Gentner, Dedre & Lera Boroditsky
    2001 Individuation, relativity, and early word learning. InMelissa Bowerman & Stephen Levinson (eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development, –. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511620669.010
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620669.010 [Google Scholar]
  22. Gijn, Rik van, Jeremy Hammond, Dejan Matić, Saskia van Putten & Ana Vilacy Galucio
    (eds.) 2014 Information structure and reference tracking in complex sentences. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.105
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.105 [Google Scholar]
  23. Givón, T.
    1984 Syntax: A functional-typological introduction. Vol.. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.17
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.17 [Google Scholar]
  24. 1990 Syntax: A functional-typological introduction. Vol.. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.syn2
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.syn2 [Google Scholar]
  25. Gobet, Fernand
    2017 Entrenchment, Gestalt formation, and chunking. InHans-Jörg Schmid (ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge, –. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. 10.1037/15969‑012
     https://doi.org/10.1037/15969-012 [Google Scholar]
  26. Halliday, M. A. K.
    1967 Intonation and grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton. 10.1515/9783111357447
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111357447 [Google Scholar]
  27. 1985 An introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Haspelmath, Martin
    2016 The serial verb construction: Comparative concept and cross-linguistic generalizations. Language and Linguistics(). –.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Hatcher, Anna Granville
    1956 Theme and underlying question: Two studies in Spanish word order [Supplement to Word 12]. New York, NY: Linguistic Circle of New York.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.
    1998 Documentary and descriptive linguistics. Linguistics(). –. 10.1515/ling.1998.36.1.161
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1998.36.1.161 [Google Scholar]
  31. 2022 Prosodic phrasing and the emergence of phrase structure. Linguistics(). –. 10.1515/ling‑2020‑0135
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2020-0135 [Google Scholar]
  32. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P., Meytal Sandler, Jan Strunk & Volker Unterladstetter
    2018 On the universality of intonational phrases: a cross-linguistic interrater study. Phonology(). –. 10.1017/S0952675718000039
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675718000039 [Google Scholar]
  33. Inbar, Maya, Shir Genzer, Anat Perry, Eitan Grossman & Ayelet N. Landau
    2023 Intonation units in spontaneous speech evoke a neural response. The Journal of Neuroscience(). –. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0235‑23.2023
     https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0235-23.2023 [Google Scholar]
  34. Izre’el, Shlomo, Heliana Mello, Alessandro Panunzi & Tommaso Raso
    (eds.) 2020 In search of basic units of spoken language: A corpus-driven approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.94
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.94 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kalbertodt, Janina, Beatrice Primus & Petra B. Schumacher
    2015 Punctuation, prosody, and discourse: Afterthought vs. right dislocation. Frontiers in Psychology. . 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01803
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01803 [Google Scholar]
  36. Kuhn, Max
    2008 Building predictive models in R using the caret package. Journal of Statistical Software(). –. 10.18637/jss.v028.i05
     https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v028.i05 [Google Scholar]
  37. Ladd, D. Robert
    2008 Intonational phonology. 2nd ed.Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511808814
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808814 [Google Scholar]
  38. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1987 Nouns and verbs. Language(). –. 10.2307/415384
     https://doi.org/10.2307/415384 [Google Scholar]
  39. Laury, Ritva, Tsuyoshi Ono & Ryoko Suzuki
    2019 Questioning the clause as a crosslinguistic unit in grammar and interaction. Studies in Language(). –. 10.1075/sl.17032.lau
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.17032.lau [Google Scholar]
  40. Lehmann, Nico, Dina Serova, Julia Lukassek, Sophia Döring, Frank Goymann, Anke Lüdeling & Roodabeh Akbari
    2023 Guidelines for the annotation of parameters of narration. Berlin: Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Li, Charles N. & Sandra A. Thompson
    1976 Subject and topic: A new typology of language. InCharles N. Li (ed.). Subject and topic, –. New York, NY: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Linders, Guido M. & Stefan Schnell
    . This volume. A cross-linguistic computational study on One New Idea per clause. Functions of Language.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Matsumoto, Kazuko
    2000 Intonation units, clauses and preferred argument structure in conversational Japanese. Language Sciences(). –. 10.1016/S0388‑0001(99)00004‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(99)00004-2 [Google Scholar]
  44. Mithun, Marianne
    2021 The multidimensional organization of speech: Syntactic and prosodic structure. Cadernos de Linguística(). –. 10.25189/2675‑4916.2021.v2.n1.id287
     https://doi.org/10.25189/2675-4916.2021.v2.n1.id287 [Google Scholar]
  45. Ochs, Elinor
    1979 Planned and unplanned discourse. InTalmy Givón (ed.), Syntax and semantics. Vol. 12. Discourse and syntax, –. New York, NY: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368897_004
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368897_004 [Google Scholar]
  46. Ozerov, Pavel
    . This volume. Joint attention, interaction-management, and other factors: The one-new-idea tendency as an emergent phenomenon. Functions of Language.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Partanen, Niko
    2017 FRelan: Parse and analyze ELAN files. R package version 0.37, commit 07b88e112b790afd09c23a272b67052c8ef83d2c, https://github.com/langdoc/FRelan
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Pawley, Andrew & Frances Hodgetts Syder
    1983 Two puzzles for linguistic theory: nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. InJack C. Richards & Richard W. Schmidt (eds.), Language and communication, –. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. 2000 The one-clause-at-a-time hypothesis. InHeidi Riggenbach (ed.), Perspectives on fluency, –. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Peck, Naomi
    2025 (Re)contextualising serialisation: Multiverbal constructions in the East Himalaya. Freiburg: Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg PhD thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. . This volume. Verbalisation and the one-new-idea constraint. Functions of Language.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Peck, Naomi & Laura Becker
    2024 Syntactic pausing? Re-examining the associations. Linguistics Vanguard(). –. 10.1515/lingvan‑2022‑0156
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2022-0156 [Google Scholar]
  53. Peck, Naomi, Kirsten Culhane, Simon Fries & Uta Reinöhl
    2026 TONIC — Testing the one-new-idea constraint annotation guidelines. OSF. March12. 10.17605/OSF.IO/AR7CF
     https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/AR7CF [Google Scholar]
  54. Post, Mark W.
    2006 Loss of writing. PARADISEC. https://catalog.paradisec.org.au/repository/TANI/GL05_ToopoGonv
     [Google Scholar]
  55. R Core Team
    R Core Team 2025 R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Reinöhl, Uta, Maria Vollmer, Kirsten Culhane, Simon Fries & Naomi Peck
    2023 One new idea constraint holds cross-linguistically even in flat expressions. Paper presented at the16th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Düsseldorf, 7–11 August 2023.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. 2024 One new idea constraint holds cross-linguistically even in flat expressions. Paper presented atHow much is too much? The one-new-idea constraint and related phenomena at the information-intonation interface, Freiburg, 12 July 2024.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. . In prep. Serial verbs and ‘flat’ nominal expressions: Pushing the boundaries of information packaging?InUta Reinöhl ed. Flat constructions reveal entity-event (a)symmetries.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Reinöhl, Uta & T. Mark Ellison
    2024 Metaphor forces argument overtness. Linguistics(). –. 10.1515/ling‑2021‑0072
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2021-0072 [Google Scholar]
  60. . This volume. The one-new-idea constraint, functor–argument metaphors, and holistic language processing. Functions of Language. ().
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Riester, Arndt & Stefan Baumann
    2017 The RefLex Scheme: Annotation guidelines. SinSpeC. –.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Schiborr, Nils, Stefan Schnell & Hanna Thiele
    2018 RefIND — Referent indexing in natural-language discourse: Annotation guidelines. Bamberg: Otto-Friedrich-Universität.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Schwarzschild, Roger
    1999 GIVENness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics(). –. 10.1023/A:1008370902407
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008370902407 [Google Scholar]
  64. Selkirk, Elisabeth O.
    1984 Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Slone, Lauren K., Drew H. Abney, Linda B. Smith & Chen Yu
    2023 The temporal structure of parent talk to toddlers about objects. Cognition. . 10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105266
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105266 [Google Scholar]
  66. Tao, Hongyin
    1996 Units in Mandarin conversation. Prosody, discourse, and grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.5
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.5 [Google Scholar]
  67. Thompson, Sandra
    2019 Understanding ‘clause’ as an emergent ‘unit’ in everyday conversation. Studies in Language(). –. 10.1075/sl.16032.tho
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.16032.tho [Google Scholar]
  68. Thompson, Sandra A. & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
    2005 The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction. Discourse Studies(). –. 10.1177/1461445605054403
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605054403 [Google Scholar]
  69. Wennerstrom, Ann & Andrew F. Siegel
    2003 Keeping the floor in multiparty conversations: Intonation, syntax, and pause. Discourse Processes(). –. 10.1207/S15326950DP3602_1
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950DP3602_1 [Google Scholar]
  70. Wickham, Hadley, Mara Averick, Jennifer Bryan, Winston Chang, Lucy D’Agostino McGowan, Romain François, Garrett Grolemund, Alex Hayes, Lionel Henry, Jim Hester, Max Kuhn, Thomas Lin Pedersen, Evan Miller, Stephan Milton Bache, Kirill Müller, Jeroen Ooms, David Robinson, Dana Paige Seidel, Vitalie Spinu, Kohske Takahashi, Davis Vaughan, Claus Wilke, Kara Woo & Hiroaki Yutani
    2019 Welcome to the tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software(). . 10.21105/joss.01686
     https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686 [Google Scholar]
  71. Wilke, Claus O.
    2024 ggridges: Ridgeline plots in ‘ggplot2’. R package version 0.5.6, https://wilkelab.org/ggridges/
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/fol.26012.rei
Loading
The ‘idea’ in the one-new-idea constraint
John Benjamins ; https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.26012.rei
/content/journals/10.1075/fol.26012.rei
/content/journals/10.1075/fol.26012.rei
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: information flow ; intonation unit ; information-intonation interface ; one-new-idea constraint

Most Cited

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