# Information structure > Mediated Wiki article. Canonical URL: https://mediated.wiki/source/Information_structure > Markdown URL: https://mediated.wiki/source/Information_structure.md > Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_structure > Source revision: 1318500036 > License: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/) {{Short description|Way in which information is formally packaged within a sentence}} {{about|the linguistic concept|the concept in web design|Information architecture|the concept in computer programming|Data structure}} In [linguistics](/source/linguistics), '''information structure''', also called '''information packaging''', describes the way in which [information](/source/information) is [formally](/source/Formal_semantics_(natural_language)) packaged within a [sentence](/source/Sentence_(linguistics)).Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. ''Information structure and sentence form.'' Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. This generally includes only those aspects of information that "respond to the temporary state of the addressee's mind", and excludes other aspects of linguistic information such as references to background (encyclopedic/common) knowledge, choice of style, [politeness](/source/politeness), and so forth.{{cite journal|last=Krifka|first=Manfred|author-link=Manfred Krifka|title=Basic notions of information structure|journal=Acta Linguistica Hungarica|volume=55|issue=3–4|pages=243–276|year=2008|issn=1216-8076|doi=10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3-4.2|url=http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/files/10025/SFB632_Basic_Notions_of_Information_Structure.pdf}} For example, the difference between an active clause (e.g., ''the police want him'') and a corresponding passive (e.g., ''he is wanted by police'') is a syntactic difference, but one motivated by information structuring considerations. Other choices motivated by information structure include preposing (e.g., ''that one I don't like'') and inversion (e.g., ''"the end", said the man'').{{cite book|last1=Huddleston|first1=Rodney|last2=Pullum|first2=Geoff K|title=The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language|date=2002|publisher=Cambridge University Press|location=Cambridge}} The basic notions of information structure are [focus](/source/focus_(linguistics)), [givenness](/source/givenness), and [topic](/source/topic-comment), as well as their complementary notions of background, newness, and comment respectively.{{cite book|last1=Kučerová|first1=Ivona|last2=Neeleman|first2=Ad|publisher=[Cambridge University Press](/source/Cambridge_University_Press)|title=Contrasts and positions in information structure|location=[Cambridge](/source/Cambridge)|year=2012|pages=1–23|isbn=978-1-107-00198-5|url=http://www.cambridge.org/9781107001985}} ''Focus'' "indicates the presence of alternatives that are relevant for the interpretation of linguistic expressions", ''givenness'' indicates that "the denotation of an expression is present" in the immediate context of the utterance, and ''topic'' is "the entity that a speaker identifies, about which then information, the comment, is given". Additional notions in information structure may include contrast and exhaustivity, but there is no general agreement in the linguistic literature about extensions of the basic three notions. There are many different approaches, such as [cognitive](/source/cognitive_linguistics), [generative](/source/generative_linguistics) or [functional](/source/functional_linguistics) architectures, to information structure.{{Cite book | title = Information structure: The syntax-discourse interface | last = Erteschik-Shir | first = Nomi | publisher = Oxford University Press | year = 2007 | location = Oxford }} The concept has also been used in studies measuring [information density](/source/succinctness) in [cognitive linguistics](/source/cognitive_linguistics).{{Cite journal |last=Gallo |first=Carlos |date=2008 |title=Incremental Syntactic Planning across Clauses |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229079008 |journal=Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society}} ==Terminology== The term {{em|information structure}} is due to Halliday (1967). In 1976, Chafe introduced the term {{em|information packaging}}. == Mechanisms in various languages == Information structure can be realized through a wide variety of linguistic mechanisms. In the spoken form of [English](/source/English_language), one of the primary methods of indicating information structure is through [intonation](/source/intonation_(linguistics)), whereby [pitch](/source/pitch_(music)) is modified from some default pattern. Other languages use syntactic mechanisms like [dislocation](/source/dislocation_(syntax)), [anaphora](/source/anaphora_(linguistics)), and [gapping](/source/gapping); morphological mechanisms like specialized focus or topic-marking [affix](/source/affix)es; and specialized [discourse particle](/source/discourse_particle)s. Cross-linguistically, word order variation (the so-called "[inverted sentences](/source/Inverted_sentence)") is one of the main syntactic devices used to convey specific information structure configurations, namely the [presentational](/source/Presentative_(linguistics)) focus.Lena, L. (2020) Referent introducing strategies in advanced L2 usage. A bi-directional study on French learners of Chinese and Chinese learners of French. In: Ryan, Jonathon and Petere Crosthwaite (Eds.) Referring in a second language: ''Referent introducing strategies in advanced L2 usage. A bi-directional study on French learners of Chinese and Chinese learners of French.'', London: Routledge, https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9780429263972/chapters/10.4324/9780429263972-9 English in fact uses more than intonation for expressing information structure, so that [clefts](/source/cleft_sentence) are used for exhaustive focus, and [grammatical particle](/source/grammatical_particle)s like ''only'' also induce contrastive focus readings. Cross-linguistically, there are clear tendencies that relate notions of information structure to particular linguistic phenomena. For instance, focus tends to be [prosodically](/source/prosody_(linguistics)) prominent, and there do not seem to be any languages that express focus by [deaccenting](/source/metrical_phonology) or destressing. The following German sentences exhibit three different kinds of syntactic 'fronting' that correlate with topic. : a. _Diesen Mann_ habe ich noch nie gesehen. : 'This man have I yet not seen.' (''movement'') : b. _Diesen Mann_, den habe ich noch nie gesehen. : 'This man, that I have yet not seen.' (''left dislocation'') : c. _Diesen Mann_, ich habe ihn noch nie gesehen. : 'This man, I have him yet not seen.' (''hanging topic'') It is often assumed that answers to questions are focused elements. Question and answer pairs are often used as diagnostics for focus, as in the following English examples. :Q: What did John do with the book yesterday? :A: He SOLD the book yesterday. :A: *He sold the book YESTERDAY. :Q: When did Jane sell the book? :A: She sold the book YESTERDAY. :A: *She SOLD the book yesterday. == Concepts == === Focus and background === {{Main|Focus (linguistics)}} ''Focus'' is a grammatical category or attribute that determines indicating that part of an utterance contributes new, non-derivable, or contrastive information.{{Cite journal|title = Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 2|journal = Journal of Linguistics|volume = 3|issue = 2|pages = 199–244|last = Halliday|first = M. A. K.|doi = 10.1017/S0022226700016613|year = 1967| s2cid=222400584 }} Some theories (in line with work by Mats Rooth) link focus to the presence of ''alternatives'' (see {{slink|Focus (linguistics)#Alternative semantics}}).{{Cite journal|title = A theory of focus interpretation|journal = Natural Language Semantics|date = 1992|issn = 0925-854X|pages = 75–116|volume = 1|issue = 1|doi = 10.1007/BF02342617|first = Mats|last = Rooth|citeseerx = 10.1.1.131.8701| s2cid=14108349 }} An alternative theory of focus would account for the stress pattern in the example from the previous section (When did Jane sell the book? She sold the book YESTERDAY), saying that YESTERDAY receives focus because it could be substituted with alternative time periods (TODAY or LAST WEEK) and still serve to answer the question the first speaker asked. ''Background'' is a more difficult concept to define; it's not simply the complement of focus. Daniel P. Hole gives the following framework: "'Focus' is a relational notion, and the entity a focus relates to is called its background, or presupposition."{{Cite web|title = Focus and Background Marking in Mandarin Chinese: System and theory behind cái, jiù, dōu and ye.|url = http://www.uni-stuttgart.de/ilg/institut/mitarbeiter/hole/schriften/Hole2004a.pdf|website = www.uni-stuttgart.de|access-date = 2015-07-15|last = Hole|first = Daniel P.|date = 2004}} === Topic and comment === {{Main|Topic and comment}} The ''topic'' (or theme) of a sentence is what is being talked about, and the ''comment'' (or rheme, or sometimes focus) is what is being said about the topic. That the information structure of a clause is divided in this way is generally agreed on, but the boundary between topic/theme depends on grammatical theory. Topic is grammaticalized in languages like Japanese and Korean, which have a designated [topic-marker](/source/Topic_marker) morpheme affixed to the topic. Some diagnostics have been proposed for languages that lack grammatical topic-markers, like English; they attempt to distinguish between different kinds of topics (such as "aboutness" topics and "contrastive" topics).Roberts, Craige (2001). "Topics". In ''Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning''. Vol. 33. (Eds. Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger, and Paul Portner). Walter de Gruyter. pp.1908-1934. The diagnostics consist of judging how felicitous it is to follow a discourse with either questions (''What about x?'') or sentences beginning with certain phrases (''About x, ... Speaking of x,'' ... ''As for x'', ...) to determine how "topical" ''x'' is in that context. === Given and new === Intuitively, ''[givenness](/source/givenness)'' classifies words and information in a discourse that are already known (or given) by virtue of being common knowledge, or by having been discussed previously in the same discourse ("anaphorically recoverable"). Certain theories (such as Roger Schwarzschild's GIVENness Constraint) require all non-focus-marked constituents to be given.{{Cite journal|title = GIVENNESS, AVOIDF AND OTHER CONSTRAINTS ON THE PLACEMENT OF ACCENT*|journal = Natural Language Semantics|date = 1999|issn = 0925-854X|pages = 141–177|volume = 7|issue = 2|doi = 10.1023/A:1008370902407|first = Roger|last = Schwarzschild| s2cid=17528648 }} Words/information that are not given, or are "textually and situationally non-derivable" are by definition ''new''. ==See also== * [Succinctness](/source/Succinctness) ==References== {{reflist}} {{Formal semantics}} Category:Linguistics Category:Semantics Category:Formal semantics (natural language) --- Adapted from the Wikipedia article [Information structure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_structure) by Wikipedia contributors ([contributor history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_structure?action=history)). Available under [Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/). Changes may have been made.