Information structure

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In linguistics , the information structure determines how the speaker arranges information within a sentence so that the listener understands the sentence as well as possible in the given context. Many linguistic disciplines, such as prosody , syntax and pragmatics , but also the cognitive processing of language play an important role.

properties

Information structure is a cross-language phenomenon and occurs in every natural language in the world. However, each language has its own information structure, which means that the structure of the information within a sentence varies from language to language. For the structuring of the information, the distinction between old and new information in an utterance is important. A distinction is also made between the part of the sentence about which a statement is made and the part of the sentence that describes what is said. In natural communication, the speaker automatically makes use of information structure.

In the scientific literature one finds different complementary pairs which are mentioned for the investigation of the information structure. Many of the characteristics of these pairs partially overlap, but cannot be used interchangeably because their definition differs slightly depending on the research tradition.

Historical background

Georg von der Gabelentz (1869) was the first linguist to deal with the linguistic phenomenon of structuring information. He used the distinction between the psychological subject and the psychological predicate. The founder of the Prague School , Vilém Mathesius , replaced these terms with the terms theme and rhema . With topic he names the part of the sentence about which a statement is made, with rhema the part of the sentence that contains the information about the topic. His colleague Jan Firbas used the complementary pairs of topic and focus to express the same fact.

In 1967/68 Michael Halliday used the term information structure for the first time and differentiated between new and given information within a sentence. In 1976 Wallace Chafe named the phenomenon of information structure as information packaging. He made it clear that the information within a sentence is "packed" in a certain way. He cited the functionality of communication as the reason for this. In a situation of natural communication, the speaker automatically "packages" the sentence elements in such a way that they are most easily processed by the listener in the given situation. Manfred Krifka took up the last mentioned approach in 2008 and distinguished between focus and background , topic and comment, and new and given for a more precise explanation of this phenomenon .

Definitions

Focus - background

According to Krifka, focus is the part of the sentence that deserves special attention. It is particularly emphasized because it represents the selection from several alternatives in a certain context. These constituents are emphasized by prosodic accentuation, word sequences or cleft sentences , so-called clefts . The rest of the sentence is as background or background called and implicitly assumed. So the background is a presupposition . This distinction is particularly clear in question-answer situations, as example (1) shows:

(1) A: "Where is Peter going tomorrow?"

B: "Peter is going to BERLIN tomorrow."

In question A in example (1) a certain situation is determined and a selection of possible answers is given. Examples of alternative answers are "Munich", "Hamburg", "Cologne" etc. Thus, in answer B in example (1), " BERLIN " is the focus. That is why " BERLIN " is emphasized with a prosodic accent. The stress could also come about through a special word sequence, as in example (2):

(2) A: "Where is Peter going tomorrow?"

B: "He's going to BERLIN tomorrow."

The statement “He's going to Berlin tomorrow” would not be expected in a neutral context, i.e. without the previously asked question. The utterance is only possible because it is uttered in the context defined by the question. The presupposition in example (1) and (2) is the fact that Peter is going somewhere.

Topic - comment

With Topik , the phrase refers to, is informed of the. The constituents that provide information about the topic are called comments .

(3) "The boy gets the ball."

In example (3), “ the boy ” corresponds to the topic and “ takes the ball ” to the comment. According to Krifka, the distinction between these two pairs is very important for memory storage, since it requires something to be said about something else.

Contrasting topic

In a situation of natural communication it can happen that a question is not answered completely or only implicitly or not at all, although new information is introduced with the answer. An answer can therefore only answer part of the question, as example (4) shows, or it can introduce new (not queried) information (see example (5)) and thus answer the question implicitly or not at all. This means that focus and topic overlap . The part of the sentence that contributes the incomplete or new (not queried) information is called a contrastive topic . This is accentuated.

(4) A: "What did the children have for lunch today?"

B: "LEO ate spinach with potatoes."

The answer is not complete as it only provides information about Leo , not the other children. Leo is emphasized here with an accent and is a contrasting topic .

(5) A: "What did Kathy contribute to the whole thing?"

B: "TOM worked the whole time."

The answer contributes information that was not asked for, as it provides information about Tom's behavior, but only implicitly, or not at all about Kathy's behavior. Tom is accented and is a contrasting topic .

Framework setting

Similar to the case of a contrastive Topiks questions can by a framework set / " frame setting " are answered incomplete. They are answered incompletely because a certain frame is set for the answer and the answer only applies to this frame (see example (6)).

(6) A: "How is Petra?"

B: "Petra's health is fine."

The adverb health provides a framework so that the answer can only refer to Petra's state of health.

Given - New

With New , the phrase refers to that has not been mentioned in the context that, therefore, includes new information. With Given the kontextsaliente phrase is called. There is a tendency that in most languages out the already given ( given are called) and thus known phrases and then the new ( new ). The reasons for this lie in the cognitive processing of language.

literature

  • Nomi Erteschik-Shir: Information Structure: The Syntax-Discourse Interface . In: Robert D. Van Valin (Ed.) : Oxford Survey in Syntax and Morphology. No. 3, 2007 Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-926258-8 .
  • Caroline Féry, Shinichiro Ishihara (Ed.): The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure . Oxford University Press, New York 2016, ISBN 978-0-19-964267-0 .
  • Manfred Krifka, Renate Musan (Ed.): The Expression of Information Structure . Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin / Boston 2012, ISBN 978-3-11-026008-3 .
  • Malte Zimmermann, Caroline Féry (Eds.): Informaiton Structure Theoretical, Typological, and Experimental Perspectives . Oxford University Press, New York 2010, ISBN 978-0-19-957095-9 .

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Malte Zimmermann, Caroline Féry: Introduction . In: Malte Zimmermann, Caroline Féry (eds.): Information Structure: Theoretical, Typological, and Experimental Perspectives . Oxford University Press, New York 2010, ISBN 978-0-19-957095-9 , pp. 1 .
  2. ↑ a b c d e Caroline Féry, Shinichiro Ishihara: Introduction . In: Caroline Féry, Shinichiro Ishihara (Eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure . Oxford University Press, New York 2016, ISBN 978-0-19-964267-0 , pp. 3, 4 .
  3. ↑ Caroline Féry, Shinichiro Ishihara: Introduction . In: Caroline Féry, Shinichiro Ishihara (Ed.): The Oxford Handboo of Information Structure . Oxford University Press, New York 2016, ISBN 978-0-19-964267-0 , pp. 4-7 .
  4. ↑ Manfred Krifka, Renate Musan: Information Structure: Overview and linguistic issues . In: Manfred Krifka, Renate Musan (Ed.): The Expressions of Information Structure . Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin / Boston 2012, ISBN 978-3-11-026008-3 , pp. 6-7 .
  5. ↑ Manfred Krifka, Renate Musan: Information structure: Overview and linguistic issues . In: Manfred Krifka, Renate Musan (Ed.): The Expression of Information Structure . Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin / Boston 2012, ISBN 978-3-11-026008-3 , pp. 25-27 .
  6. ↑ Caroline Féry, Shinichiro Ishihara: Introduction . In: Caroline Féry, Shinichiro Ishihara (Eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure . Oxford University Press, Berlin / Boston 2016, ISBN 978-0-19-964267-0 , pp. 6-7 .
  7. ↑ Manfred Krifka, Renate Musan: Information Structure: Overview and linguistic issues . In: Manfred Krifka, Renate Musan (Ed.): The Expression of Information Structure . Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin / Boston 2012, ISBN 978-3-11-026008-3 , pp. 30-31 .
  8. ↑ Manfred Krifka, Renate Musan: Information Structure: Overview and linguistic issues . In: Manfred Krifka, Renate Musan (Ed.): The Expression of Information Structure . Mouton de Gruyter, 2012, ISBN 978-3-11-026008-3 , pp. 31-32 .
  9. ↑ Manfred Krifka, Renate Musan: Information structure: Overview and linguistic issues . In: Mannfred Krifka, Renate Musan (Ed.): The Expression of Information Structure . Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin / Boston 2012, ISBN 978-3-11-026008-3 , pp. 31 .
  10. ↑ Caroline Féry, Shinichiro Ishihara: Introduction . In: Caroline Féry, Shinichiro Ishihara (Eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure . Oxford University Press, Berlin / Boston 2016, ISBN 978-0-19-964267-0 , pp. 6 .