# Givenness > Mediated Wiki article. Canonical URL: https://mediated.wiki/source/Givenness > Markdown URL: https://mediated.wiki/source/Givenness.md > Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Givenness > Source revision: 1282912296 > License: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/) Quality of information that is assumed to be known to the listener This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please help improve it to make it understandable to non-experts, without removing the technical details. (February 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this message) In [linguistics](/source/Linguistics), **givenness** is the degree to which a speaker assumes certain contextual information of a topic of [discourse](/source/Discourse) is already known to the listener. The speaker thus considers it unnecessary to provide further contextual information through an expression's linguistic properties (e.g. its syntactic form or position, or its patterns of stress and intonation).[1] A given contextual information in a discourse is assumed to be known by the addressee in the moment of [utterance](/source/Utterance), therefore a given expression must be known from prior discourse.[2] Givenness is marked by the absence of emphasis or detailed explanations. For example, when informing a close friend of having taken a long-considered action, one might simply say "I did it!" The givenness of the action which "it" refers to results from previously discussing the action. In that utterance, the stress would not fall on "it," but on "did." This example may be contrasted when the nature of the action is new information, such as "I did a cartwheel!" In this case, the [object](/source/Object_(linguistics)) of *did*— the noun *cartwheel*— will receive the emphasis. ## Definitions In literature, [Prince](/source/Ellen_Prince) (1981) distinguishes between three different kinds of Givenness:[3] 1. "The speaker assumes the hearer can predict or could have predicted a particular linguistic item will or would occur in a particular position within a sentence. 1. "The speaker assumes the hearer has or could appropriately have some particular thing/entity/... in his/her CONSCIOUSNESS at the time of hearing the utterance. 1. "The speaker assumes the hearer "knows," assumes, or can infer in a particular thing (but is not necessarily thinking about it)." Definition by [Krifka](/source/Manfred_Krifka) (2008):[4] A feature X of an expression α is a Givenness feature if X indicates whether the denotation of α is present in the CG [(Common Ground)] (see below) or not, and/or indicates the degree to which it is present in the immediate CG. This definition allows two different interpretations of givenness: givenness may be either a categorical feature (given vs. not given), or a scale that expresses the degree of discourse salience. Definition by [Kratzer](/source/Angelika_Kratzer) and [Selkirk](/source/Elisabeth_Selkirk) (2018):[2] *An expression α is Given in a context C if there is a discourse referent (individual, property, proposition) in C that entails [[α]] O, C.* ## Entailment [*Entailment*](/source/Linguistic_entailment) describes the relation between expression *α* and expression *β* when one of the following conditions applies:[2] Co-reference is one of the two semantic relations that express Givenness.[1] Formally, references α and β both refer to the same entity (the referent): α,β ∈ De, α = β.[2] A [pronoun](/source/Pronoun) *(α)* usually identifies a [noun phrase](/source/Noun_phrase) that has been mentioned *(β)* in a prior context and (*α*). Examples of:[2] 1. On my way home, *a dog* barked at me. I was really frightened by [the fierce German shepherd]Given. 1. Did you see *Dr. Cramer* to get your root canal? - Don't remind me. I'd like to strangle [the butcher]Given. 1. *My neighbor* is a funny character. Still, I really like [John]Given. [1] Alternatively, for non-referential α and β (e.g. [predicates](/source/Predicate_(grammar)), [quantifiers](/source/Quantifier_(linguistics))), α is given if the meaning of α and β are extensionally identical or *α* is a [hypernym](/source/Hyponymy_and_hypernymy) of *β.* Formally, α,β ∈ Dt, and α=0 or β=1.[2] Extensional Identity occurs when an expression α is identical with a prior mentioned expression β, which makes α given. 1. They brought some *beer (β),* but they didn't drink [*the* *beer]*Given *(α)* because it was warm.[1] A [hypernym](/source/Hyponymy_and_hypernymy) α of another item β is when the meaning of α includes β as a subcategory, making item α given: X: I brought *carrots (β)* to the picnic. Y: But I don't like [*vegetables*]Given *(α).* However, if instead β includes α, there is [hyponymy](/source/Hyponymy_and_hypernymy), and the hyponym *(α)* is considered to be not given: X: I put some *vegetables (β)* in the soup. Y: Oh I hate *carrots (α).* I hope you didn't put any inside. Propositional Identity occurs when the proposition *(α)* is given because it is identical with the proposition *(β)* and proposition *(β)* is true. a. Did you hear that *Otto went to Russia (β)*? b. I can't believe that [*he went to Russia]*Given *(α).* Asymmetric Entailment occurs when the proposition *(α)* is given because the proposition *(α)* is always true when the proposition *(β)* is true. a. Did you hear that *Otto went to Russia*? b. I can't believe *[that he left]*Given*(α).* ## Expressing givenness Givenness can be expressed by [anaphoric expressions](/source/Anaphora_(linguistics)), [deletion](/source/Deletion_(linguistics)), or [word order](/source/Word_order).[4] ### Anaphoric expressions [*Anaphoric*](/source/Anaphora_(linguistics)) expressions indicate the status of their denotations.[4] Anaphoric expressions include personal pronouns, clitics and person inflections, demonstratives, and definite articles as well as indefinite articles that indicate a non-given referent.[4] a. *The crowd* approached the gate. The guards were AFRAID of [the women]Given.[1] b. *The children* were up late. I'm reluctant to WAKE [the boys]Given.[1] c. *John* ate garlic bread. Then [he]Given kissed Mary. ### Decantation *Decantation* is a form of [prosodic](/source/Prosody_(linguistics)) reduction. a. Ten years after John inherited an old farm, he SOLD [the shed]Given[4] Here *the shed* is decanted because it is referring to the prior mentioned *farm*. Decantation is conditioned by Common Ground Management and can be seen as presuppositional because it *expresses a presupposition of a situationally salient antecedent of a particular sort*.[1] Decantation can also occur in indefinite [noun phrases](/source/Noun_phrase): a. If John paints a hot dog, Sam will eat [a hot dog]Given. Decantation can occur on a [focused](/source/Focus_(linguistics)) constituent that is given at the same time, where it does not bear the pitch accent but functions as a [focus](/source/Focus_(linguistics)) with *only* :[1] a. X: Everyone already knew that Mary only eats VEGETABLES. Y: If even PAUL knew that Mary only eats [vegetables]Given, then he should have suggested a different RESTAURANT. ### Deletion *[Deletion](/source/Elision)* is an extreme form of reduction.[4] a. Bill went to Greenland, and Mary did _ too.[4] In this example, one can find the deletion of the VP *went to Greenland.* ### Word Order In the double object construction, given constituents precede new constituents:[4] a. Bill showed the boy a girl. *Bill showed a boy the girl. *Bill showed the girl a boy.[4] ## Common Ground [Common Ground (CG)](/source/Grounding_in_communication) in [linguistics](/source/Linguistics) is the shared knowledge between participants in [discourse](/source/Discourse). It is a set of propositions and entities that are known to both speakers, and is updated during the discourse.[1] Common Ground can further be divided into - *Common Ground Management* (CG Management) that is concerned with the immediate and temporary needs and communicative goals [1] of discourse partners. - *Common Ground Content* (CG Content) that records and updates the shared knowledge and belief[1] of discourse partners. ## Exceptions Two individuals who spend a lot of time together or have many shared experiences can more easily latch onto each other's givenness in their discourse. However, when that phenomenon is relied upon in future or ongoing conversations, deficits in information can begin to develop, and as a result, it becomes difficult to assess givenness in the context of new conversations. ## See also - [Presupposition](/source/Presupposition) - [Topic and comment](/source/Topic_and_comment) - [Focus (linguistics)](/source/Focus_(linguistics)) ## References 1. ^ [***a***](#cite_ref-:0_1-0) [***b***](#cite_ref-:0_1-1) [***c***](#cite_ref-:0_1-2) [***d***](#cite_ref-:0_1-3) [***e***](#cite_ref-:0_1-4) [***f***](#cite_ref-:0_1-5) [***g***](#cite_ref-:0_1-6) [***h***](#cite_ref-:0_1-7) [***i***](#cite_ref-:0_1-8) [***j***](#cite_ref-:0_1-9) [***k***](#cite_ref-:0_1-10) Rochemont, Michael (2016). "Givenness". In Féry, Caroline (ed.). *The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure*. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 41–63. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [9780199642670](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780199642670). 1. ^ [***a***](#cite_ref-:1_2-0) [***b***](#cite_ref-:1_2-1) [***c***](#cite_ref-:1_2-2) [***d***](#cite_ref-:1_2-3) [***e***](#cite_ref-:1_2-4) [***f***](#cite_ref-:1_2-5) Kratzer, Angelica & Selkirk, Elizabeth (2018). Deconstructing Information Structure. Manuscript, University of Massachusetts, at Amherst and University College London (UCL). [https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004201](https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004201) 1. **[^](#cite_ref-3)** Prince, Ellen (1981). "Toward a taxonomy of given-new information". In Cole, Peter (ed.). *Radical Pragmatics*. New York: Academic Press. pp. 91–136. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [0121796604](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0121796604). 1. ^ [***a***](#cite_ref-:2_4-0) [***b***](#cite_ref-:2_4-1) [***c***](#cite_ref-:2_4-2) [***d***](#cite_ref-:2_4-3) [***e***](#cite_ref-:2_4-4) [***f***](#cite_ref-:2_4-5) [***g***](#cite_ref-:2_4-6) [***h***](#cite_ref-:2_4-7) [***i***](#cite_ref-:2_4-8) Krifka, Manfred (2008). ["Basic Notions of Information Structure"](http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/files/10025/SFB632_Basic_Notions_of_Information_Structure.pdf) (PDF). *Acta Linguistica Hungarica*. **55** (3–4): 243–276. [doi](/source/Doi_(identifier)):[10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3-4.2](https://doi.org/10.1556%2FALing.55.2008.3-4.2). v t e Formal semantics (natural language) Central concepts Compositionality Denotation Entailment Extension Generalized quantifier Intension Logical form Presupposition Proposition Reference Scope Speech act Syntax–semantics interface Truth conditions Topics Areas Anaphora Ambiguity Binding Conditionals Definiteness Disjunction Evidentiality Focus Indexicality Lexical semantics Modality Negation Propositional attitudes Tense–aspect–mood Quantification Vagueness Phenomena Antecedent-contained deletion Cataphora Coercion Conservativity Counterfactuals Crossover effects Cumulativity De dicto and de re De se Deontic modality Discourse relations Donkey anaphora Epistemic modality Exhaustivity Faultless disagreement Free choice inferences Givenness Homogeneity (linguistics) Hurford disjunction Inalienable possession Intersective modification Logophoricity Mirativity Modal subordination Opaque contexts Performatives Polarity items Privative adjectives Quantificational variability effect Responsive predicate Rising declaratives Scalar implicature Sloppy identity Subsective modification Subtrigging Telicity Temperature paradox Veridicality Formalism Formal systems Alternative semantics Categorial grammar Combinatory categorial grammar Discourse representation theory (DRT) Dynamic semantics Generative grammar Glue semantics Inquisitive semantics Intensional logic Lambda calculus Mereology Montague grammar Segmented discourse representation theory (SDRT) Situation semantics Supervaluationism Type theory TTR Concepts Autonomy of syntax Context set Continuation Conversational scoreboard Downward entailing Existential closure Function application Meaning postulate Monads Plural quantification Possible world Quantifier raising Quantization Question under discussion Semantic parsing Squiggle operator Strawson entailment Strict conditional Type shifter Universal grinder See also Cognitive semantics Computational semantics Distributional semantics Formal grammar Inferentialism Logic translation Linguistics wars Philosophy of language Pragmatics Semantics of logic --- Adapted from the Wikipedia article [Givenness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Givenness) by Wikipedia contributors ([contributor history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Givenness?action=history)). Available under [Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/). Changes may have been made.