Information structure Mary Dalrymple, John Lowe, & Louise Mycock Centre for Linguistics and Philology Oxford University Konstanz, November/December 2012
Information structure Information structure is the level of sentence organisation which represents how the speaker structures the utterance in context in order to facilitate information exchange. Specifically, it indicates how the propositional content of an utterance fits the addressee’s state of knowledge at the time of utterance. (Dalrymple & Nikolaeva, 2011, Chapter 3)
Content of information structure • TOPIC : the entity or entities that the proposition is about (Reinhart, 1981; Gundel, 1988; Lambrecht, 1994). An entity, E, is the topic of a sentence, S, iff in using S the speaker intends to increase the addressee’s knowledge about, request information about, or otherwise get the addressee to act with respect to E (Gundel, 1988). There can be more than one topic, the primary topic and the secondary topic (Nikolaeva, 2001; Dalrymple & Nikolaeva, 2011). • FOCUS : informative, newsy, contrary-to-expectation part of the sentence (Vallduv´ ı, 1992; Vallduv´ ı & Engdahl, 1996); the semantic component of a pragmatically structured proposition whereby the assertion differs from the presupposition (Lambrecht, 1994)
Content of information structure • BACKGROUND : old/presupposed information specifying detailed knowledge that may be necessary for a complete understanding of new (focused) information — different from TOPIC , which is a pointer to the relevant information to be accessed by the addressee (Butt & King, 2000) • COMPLETIVE : new to the addressee but, unlike focus, not associated with the difference between pragmatic assertion and pragmatic presupposition (Butt & King, 2000) What is Bill eating? He is eating pizza in the kitchen. TOPIC BACKGROUND FOCUS COMPLETIVE
Information structure in LFG Mycock (2009): the traditional semantic structure of LFG, an important component of the “glue” approach to the syntax-semantics interface, plays an important role in representing information structure relations.
Categorising meaning contributions Categorise meaning constructors according to their information structure role (similar to “structured meaning” approaches: von Stechow 1982; Krifka 1992). [What did John do?] John married Rosa. TOPIC FOCUS ‘ MARRY � SUBJ , OBJ � ’ PRED � � j : ‘J OHN ’ SUBJ PRED m : � � r : ‘R OSA ’ PRED OBJ { john : j σ } TOPIC � λ y .λ x . marry ( x, y ) : r σ − � ◦ ( j σ − ◦ m σ ) m σι FOCUS rosa : r σ
Using abbreviations: Simpler representations IP ‘ MARRY � SUBJ , OBJ � ’ PRED I ′ NP � � j : ‘J OHN ’ PRED SUBJ m : N ′ VP � � r : ‘R OSA ’ PRED OBJ V ′ N John V NP { John } TOPIC married N ′ � � married m σι FOCUS Rosa N Rosa
Simpler representations married-Rosa can be derived from the premises married and Rosa: IP NP I ′ ‘ MARRY � SUBJ , OBJ � ’ PRED � � j : ‘J OHN ’ N ′ VP PRED SUBJ m : � � r : N V ′ ‘R OSA ’ PRED OBJ John V NP { John } TOPIC married N ′ m σι { married-Rosa } FOCUS N Rosa
Specification of information structure role in semantic structure • Each meaning constructor is required to take on some information structure role (i.e., to appear in the appropriate set at information structure). • Which role it takes on can be specified in various ways: agreement, casemarking, word order, prosody, ... • How to accomplish this: Specify the information structure role of a meaning constructor as the value of the attribute DF in its semantic structure. This allows for instantiation of information structure roles by various modules of the grammar. • We can then use the value of that attribute to assign the appropriate role at information structure.
Revised lexical entries Each meaning contribution must bear some information structure role, specified as a feature at semantic structure: John ( ↑ PRED ) = ‘J OHN ’ N john ∈ ( ↑ σι ( ↑ σ DF )) The meaning constructor john (defined as john : ↑ σ ) is a member of the set value of the discourse function signified by ( ↑ σ DF ) within the information structure ↑ σι . (This is similar to the treatment of PCASE in early treatments of obliques.)
Phrase structure rules Subject as the default topic: − → IP NP I ′ ( ↑ SUBJ )= ↓ ↑ = ↓ ↑ σι = ↓ σι (( ↓ σ DF )= TOPIC )
Relations between structures IP NP ( m SUBJ )= j I ′ m σι = j σι (( j σ DF )= TOPIC ) � � � � j : ‘J OHN ’ m : PRED SUBJ N ′ N John ( j PRED ) = ‘J OHN ’ john ∈ ( j σι ( j σ DF ))
Functional description ( m SUBJ )= j m σι = j σι � � � � j : ‘J OHN ’ m : (( j σ DF )= TOPIC ) PRED SUBJ ( j PRED ) = ‘J OHN ’ john ∈ ( j σι ( j σ DF ))
Functional description • m σι = j σι : requires the information structure corresponding to m and j to be the same. We assume that all members of a clause share the same information structure. The result is that specifying a particular information structure role for a meaning constructor means that it bears that information structure role within the entire clause. • (( j σ DF )= TOPIC ) provides an optional, default discourse function TOPIC for the subject. • john ∈ ( j σι ( j σ DF )): the meaning constructor john must bear the information-structure role specified by ( j σ DF ).
Functional description (( j σ DF )= TOPIC ) john ∈ ( j σι ( j σ DF )) ≡ john ∈ ( j σι TOPIC ) • the semantic structure j σ corresponding to j has the feature DF with value TOPIC • the value of j σ ’s DF appears as the feature TOPIC in the information structure for the clause, m σι
Rules − → I ′ IP NP ( ↑ SUBJ )= ↓ ↑ = ↓ ↑ σι = ↓ σι (( ↑ σ DF )= TOPIC ) � � I − → I ′ VP ↑ = ↓ ↑ = ↓ VP − → V ′ ↑ = ↓ NP − → V ′ V ( ↑ OBJ )= ↓ ↑ = ↓ ↑ σι = ↓ σι
Lexical entries married ( ↑ PRED ) = ‘ MARRY � SUBJ , OBJ � ’ V marry ∈ ( ↑ σι ( ↑ σ DF )) Rosa ( ↑ PRED ) = ‘R OSA ’ N rosa ∈ ( ↑ σι ( ↑ σ DF ))
C-structure and f-structure ‘ MARRY � SUBJ , OBJ � ’ PRED � � j : ‘J OHN ’ SUBJ PRED IP m : NP � � r : ‘R OSA ’ PRED ( m SUBJ )= j OBJ I ′ m σι = j σι (( j σ DF )= TOPIC ) N ′ VP V ′ N John NP ( j PRED ) = ‘J OHN ’ V ( m OBJ )= r john ∈ ( j σι ( j σ DF )) m σι = r σι married ( m PRED ) = ‘ MARRY � SUBJ , OBJ � ’ N ′ marry ∈ ( m σι ( m σ DF )) N Rosa ( r PRED ) = ‘R OSA ’ rosa ∈ ( r σι ( r σ DF ))
Contribution from linguistic and pragmatic context ( j σ DF ) = TOPIC ( m σ DF ) = FOCUS ( r σ DF ) = FOCUS This information comes from agreement, casemarking, prosody, word order, context...
John married Rosa (A) ( m PRED ) = ‘ MARRY � SUBJ , OBJ � ’ ‘ MARRY � SUBJ , OBJ � ’ PRED ( m SUBJ )= j � � j : ‘J OHN ’ PRED SUBJ ( j PRED ) = ‘J OHN ’ m : ( m OBJ )= r � � r : ‘R OSA ’ OBJ PRED ( r PRED ) = ‘R OSA ’ � TOPIC � (B) ( j σ DF )= TOPIC j σ : DF � FOCUS � ( m σ DF ) = FOCUS m σ : DF � FOCUS � ( r σ DF ) = FOCUS r σ : DF (C) john ∈ ( j σι ( j σ DF )) marry ∈ ( m σι ( m σ DF )) rosa ∈ ( r σι ( r σ DF )) m σι = j σι m σι = r σι
John married Rosa (C) john ∈ ( m σι TOPIC ) marry ∈ ( m σι FOCUS ) rosa ∈ ( m σι FOCUS ) { john } TOPIC � � m σι : marry FOCUS rosa
References Butt, Miriam & Tracy Holloway King. 2000. Null elements in discourse structure. In K. V. Subbarao (editor), Papers From the NULLS Seminar . Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Dalrymple, Mary & Irina Nikolaeva. 2011. Objects and Information Structure . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Gundel, Jeanette K. 1988. The Role of Topic and Comment in Linguistic Theory . Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics. New York: Garland. Krifka, Manfred. 1992. A framework for focus-sensitive quantification. In Chris Barker & David Dowty (editors), SALT 2: Proceedings of the Second Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference , pp. 215–236. Department of Linguistics, Ohio State University. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics, Number 40. Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Mycock, Louise. 2009. “What do you do?”: Variation in interrogative predicates. Presented at the workshop “Blurring Component Boundaries: Levels of Analysis or Growth of Information?”, LFG09, Cambridge, July 2009. Nikolaeva, Irina. 2001. Secondary topic as a relation in information structure.
Recommend
More recommend
