1887
Volume 23, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238

Abstract

The aim of this article is to complement and refine Ellen Prince’s well-known taxonomy of given/new information (Prince 1981, 1992), which distinguishes between discourse-related and assumed familiarity-related newness/givenness. What we suggest is that a new category should be added to the existing hearer new, hearer old, and inferrable information categories, so as to include cases where the informational status of an entity or a propositional content cannot be determined with certainty. We call this new category ‘the (hearer) indeterminables’, and we justify its existence through a case study on nonrestrictive, relevance-oriented constructions (appositive relative clauses, non-restrictive pre-modifiers, apposition). We also argue that it is possible for speakers/writers to simulate informational statuses for politeness considerations, and that such simulation should be included in the definition of assumed familiarity.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.23.1.04loo
2013-01-01
2019-02-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ariel, Mira
    (1988) Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics24: 65-87. doi: 10.1017/S0022226700011567
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700011567 [Google Scholar]
  2. (1990) Accessing Noun Phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bayraktaroglu, Arin
    (1991) Politeness and interactional imbalance. International Journal of the Sociology of Language93: 5-34.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Birner, Betty J
    (1996) The Discourse Function of Inversion in English. New York: Garland.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. (2004) Discourse functions at the periphery: Noncanonical word order in English. In B. Shaer , W. Frey , and C. Maienborn (eds.), Proceedings of the Dislocated Elements Workshop, Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin, November 2003, Volume 1 (ZAS Papers in Linguistics 35). Berlin: Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, pp. 41–62.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. (2006) Inferential relations and noncanonical word order. In B. Birner , and G. Ward (eds.), Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in Honor of Laurence R. Horn. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 31-51. doi: 10.1075/slcs.80
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/slcs.80 [Google Scholar]
  7. Birner, Betty J. , and Ward, Gregory
    (1998) Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/slcs.40
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.40 [Google Scholar]
  8. Birner, Betty J ., Ward, Gregory , and Huddleston, Rodney
    (2002) Information packaging. In R. Huddleston , and G.K. Pullum , The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, chapter 16: pp. 1363-1448.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Brown, Penelope , and Levinson, Stephen
    (1978) Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. Goody (ed.), Questions and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 56-289.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Chafe, William L
    (1976) Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In C. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, pp. 25-55.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. (1987) Cognitive constraints on information flow. In R. Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 21-51. doi: 10.1075/tsl.11.03cha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.11.03cha [Google Scholar]
  13. (1994) Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. (1997) Polyphonic topic development. In T. Givón (ed.), Conversation: Cognitive, Communicative and Social Perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 41-55. doi: 10.1075/tsl.34.03cha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.34.03cha [Google Scholar]
  15. Daneš, František
    (1966) A three-level approach to syntax. In F. Daneš et al (eds.), Travaux linguistiques de Prague. Alabama: University of Alabama Press, Volume 1: pp.225-240.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Evans, David A
    (1981) A situation semantics approach to the analysis of speech acts. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-81). Morristown, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 113–116.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Firbas, Jan
    (1966) Non-thematic subjects in contemporary English. Travaux Linguistiques de Prague2: 239–256.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Goffman, Erving
    (1967) Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face-to-Face Behavior. Random House: Aldine Transaction.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Halliday, Michael A.K. , and Hasan, Ruqayia
    (1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Haviland, Susan E. , and Herbert Clark
    (1974) What’s new? Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior13: 512-521. doi: 10.1016/S0022‑5371(74)80009‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(74)80009-5 [Google Scholar]
  21. Higgins, Roger F
    (1979) The Pseudo-Cleft Construction in English. New York: Garland Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hopper, Paul , and Sandra A. Thompson
    (1980) Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language56: 251-299. doi: 10.1353/lan.1980.0017
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/lan.1980.0017 [Google Scholar]
  23. Hudson, Thom , Emily Detmer , and J.D. Brown
    (1992) A Framework for Testing Cross-Cultural Pragmatics. Honolulu: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine
    (2005) Le discours en interaction. Paris: Armand Colin.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Lambrecht, Knud
    (1994) Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  26. Loock, Rudy
    (2005) La proposition subordonnée relative appositive à l’écrit et à l’oral en anglais contemporain: Fonctions discursives et structures concurrentes. Doctoral dissertation. Université Charles de Gaulle, Lille.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. (2007) Appositive relative clauses and their functions in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics39: 336-362. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.02.007
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.02.007 [Google Scholar]
  28. (2010a) Appositive Relative Clauses in English: Discourse Functions and Competing Structures. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/sidag.22
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.22 [Google Scholar]
  29. (2010b) The "Fame Effect" or how the syntactic choices of writers can be explained by their assumptions about their addressees' state of knowledge: The case of relevance-oriented, non-restrictive noun modifiers. Discours7, discours.revues.org/8027
    [Google Scholar]
  30. (2010c) La fausse hiérarchisation entre information nouvelle et information ancienne à l'épreuve des modèles théoriques de la politesse. Lexis, special issue 2, Theoretical Approaches to Linguistic (Im)politeness: 95-110.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Loock, Rudy , and Kathleen M. O’Connor
    (2011) The discourse functions of non-finite appositives. Presentation at IPrA12 – “Pragmatics and its interfaces” (Manchester, United Kingdom), 3-8 July 2011.
  32. Lyons, John
    (1977) Semantics. Volume 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Mikkelsen, Line
    (2004) Reexamining Higgins’ taxonomy: A split in the identificational class. Paper presented at the78th Linguistic Society of America meeting (Boston).
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Miller, Philip
    (2001) Discourse constraints on (non)-extraposition from subject in English. Linguistics39: 683-701. doi: 10.1515/ling.2001.028
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ling.2001.028 [Google Scholar]
  35. Prince, Ellen F
    (1981) Toward a taxonomy of given/new information. In P. Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 223–254.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. (1986) On the syntactic marking of presupposed open propositions. In A. Farley et al (eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory, 22nd regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, pp.208-222.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. (1992) The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information-status. In S. Thompson , and W. Mann (eds.), Discourse Description: Diverse Analyses of a Fundraising Text. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 295–325. doi: 10.1075/pbns.16.12pri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.16.12pri [Google Scholar]
  38. Sifianou, Maria
    (1995) Do we need to be silent to be extremely polite? Silence and FTAs. Applied Linguistics5: 95-110. doi: 10.1111/j.1473‑4192.1995.tb00074.x
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.1995.tb00074.x [Google Scholar]
  39. Sperber, Dan , and Deirdre Wilson
    (1986) Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Ward, Gregory , and Betty J. Birner
    (1995) Definiteness and the English existential. Language71: 722-742. doi: 10.2307/415742
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415742 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.23.1.04loo
Loading
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