Article published in:
Pragmatics
Vol. 23:1 (2013) ► pp. 69–91

Extending further and refining Prince’s taxonomy of given/new information

A case study of non-restrictive, relevance-oriented structures

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.
Keywords: Prince’s taxonomy, Given/new information, Informational status, Relevance, Non-restrictive, Politeness, Foreground/background, Relative clauses, Apposition
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 01 March 2013
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.23.1.04loo
References
Ariel, Mira
(1988) Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics 241: 65-87. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1990) Accessing Noun Phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bayraktaroglu, Arin
(1991) Politeness and interactional imbalance. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 931: 5-34.Google Scholar
Birner, Betty J
(1996) The Discourse Function of Inversion in English. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
(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
(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. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Birner, Betty J., and Ward, Gregory
(1998) Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
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
(1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
(1987) Cognitive constraints on information flow. In R. Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 21-51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1994) Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1997) Polyphonic topic development. In T. Givón (ed.), Conversation: Cognitive, Communicative and Social Perspectives.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 41-55. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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 11: pp. 225-240.Google Scholar
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.
Firbas, Jan
(1966) Non-thematic subjects in contemporary English. Travaux Linguistiques de Prague 21: 239–256.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving
(1967) Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face-to-Face Behavior. Random House: Aldine Transaction.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A.K., and Hasan, Ruqayia
(1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Haviland, Susan E., and Herbert Clark
(1974) What’s new? Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior 131: 512-521. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, Roger F
(1979) The Pseudo-Cleft Construction in English. New York: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul, and Sandra A. Thompson
(1980) Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 561: 251-299. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
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
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine
(2005) Le discours en interaction. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
(1994) Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
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.
(2007) Appositive relative clauses and their functions in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 391: 336-362. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
(2010a) Appositive Relative Clauses in English: Discourse Functions and Competing Structures. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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. Discours 71, http://​discours​.revues​.org​/8027Google Scholar
(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
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.
Lyons, John
(1977) Semantics. Volume 21. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Mikkelsen, Line
(2004) Reexamining Higgins’ taxonomy: A split in the identificational class. Paper presented at the 78th Linguistic Society of America meeting (Boston).
Miller, Philip
(2001) Discourse constraints on (non)-extraposition from subject in English. Linguistics 391: 683-701. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
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
(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
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sifianou, Maria
(1995) Do we need to be silent to be extremely polite? Silence and FTAs. Applied Linguistics 51: 95-110. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
(1986) Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Ward, Gregory, and Betty J. Birner
(1995) Definiteness and the English existential. Language 711: 722-742. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

Full-text

Extending further and refining Prince’s taxonomy of given/new information
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Lee, EunHee & Mitsuaki Shimojo
2016. Mismatch of topic between Japanese and Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 25:1 ► pp. 81 ff. Crossref logo
Loock, Rudy & Cyril Auran
2014. Magnitude Estimation: can it do something for your pragmatics?. Corela :12-1 Crossref logo
Loock, Rudy & Kathleen M. O’Connor
2013. The Discourse Functions of Nonverbal Appositives. Journal of English Linguistics 41:4 ► pp. 332 ff. Crossref logo
O’Grady, Gerard
2016. Given/New: What do the terms refer to?. English Text Construction 9:1 ► pp. 9 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.