In order to investigate the empirical properties of focus, it is necessary to diagnose focus (or: "what is focused") in particular linguistic examples. <br>It is often taken for granted that the application of one single diagnostic tool, the so-called question-answer test, which roughly says that whatever a question asks for is focused in the answer, is a fool-proof test for focus. <br>This paper investigates one example class where such uncritical belief in the question-answer test has led to the assumption of rather complex focus projection rules: in these examples, pitch accent placement has been claimed to depend on certain parts of the focused constituents being given or not. <br>It is demonstrated that such focus projection rules are unnecessarily complex and in turn require the assumption of unnecessarily complicated meaning rules, not to speak of the difficulties to give a precise semantic/pragmatic definition of the allegedly involved givenness property. <br>For the sake of the argument, an alternative analysis is put forward which relies solely on alternative sets following Mats Rooth's work, and avoids any recourse to givenness.<br> As it turns out, this alternative analysis is not only simpler but also makes in a critical case the better predictions.

Elke Kasimir’s paper (in this volume) argues against employing the notion of Givenness in the explanation of accent assignment. I will claim that the arguments against Givenness put forward by Kasimir are inconclusive because they beg the question of the role of Givenness. <br>It is concluded that, more generally, arguments against Givenness as a diagnostic for information structural partitions should not be accepted offhand, since the notion of Givenness of discourse referents is (a) theoretically simple, (b) readily observable and quantifiable, and (c) bears cognitive significance.

The papers collected in this volume were presented at a Graduate/Postgraduate Student Conference with the title Information Structure: Empirical Perspectives on Theory held on December 2 and 3, 2011 at Potsdam-Griebnitzsee. The main goal of the conference was to connect young researchers working on information structure (IS) related topics and to discuss various IS categories such as givenness, focus, topic, and contrast. The aim of the conference was to find at least partial answers to the following questions: What IS categories are necessary? Are they gradient/continuous? How can one deal with optionality or redundancy? How are IS categories encoded grammatically? How do different empirical methods contribute to distinguishing between the influence of different IS categories on language comprehension and production? To answer these questions, a range of languages (Avatime, Chinese, German, Ishkashimi, Modern Greek, Old Saxon, Russian, Russian Sign Language and Sign Language of the Netherlands) and a range of phenomena from phonology, semantics, and syntax were investigated. The presented theories and data were based on different kinds of linguistic evidence: syntactic and semantic fieldwork, corpus studies, and phonological experiments. The six papers presented in this volume discuss a variety of IS categories, such as emphasis and contrast (Stavropoulous, Titov), association with focus and topics (van Putten, Karvovskaya), and givenness and backgrounding (Kimmelmann, Röhr).

This article takes stock of the basic notions of Information Structure (IS). It first provides a general characterization of IS — following Chafe (1976) — within a communicative model of Common Ground(CG), which distinguishes between CG content and CG management. IS is concerned with those features of language that concern the local CG. Second, this paper defines and discusses the notions of Focus (as indicating alternatives) and its various uses, Givenness (as indicating that a denotation is already present in the CG), and Topic (as specifying what a statement is about). It also proposes a new notion, Delimitation, which comprises contrastive topics and frame setters, and indicates that the current conversational move does not entirely satisfy the local communicative needs. It also points out that rhetorical structuring partly belongs to IS.

This paper reviews notions related to focus and presupposition and addresses the hypothesis that focus triggers an existential presupposition. Presupposition projection behavior in certain examples appears to favor a presuppositional analysis of focus. It is argued that these examples are open to a different analysis using givenness theory. Overall, the analysis favors a weak semantics for focus not including an existential presupposition.

The process of communication is based on two types of information: given (old) and new. Given information is the information shared by the speaker and the addressee; new information is the information known to the speaker only or the given information actualized (made relevant) by the speaker. In the process of communication the speaker uses two bare mechanisms or environments to generate given information: non-linguistic and linguistic. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the generation of givenness in a linguistic and a non-linguistic environment in monologues and dialogues in literary text. The novel by Curt Vonnegut “Cat’s cradle” was selected as a corpus for the analysis of given information in literary text. The research demonstrated that the choice of mechanism used for the generation of given elements is directly related to the choice of linguistic means: using a non-linguistic mechanism the speaker heavily relies on the physical context, the dominance of deictic expressions were used. Using a linguistic mechanism (first and second mention sequence) the speaker relies on the following linguistic devices: the article, personal and demonstrative pronouns. The considerable part of given items was established by so called ready- made given items which express given information derived from the shared geographical and cultural environment. The functioning of non-linguistic mechanism, which was realized by the interactions (monologues), was restricted by the... [to full text] / Magistro kvalifikaciniam laipsniui įgyti baigiamajame darbe nagrinėjama duotumas ir jo realizavimas lingvistinėje ir nelingvistinėje aplinkoje. Komunikacijos procesas remiasi dvejų tipų informacija: duotąja informacija ir naująja. Duotoji informacija - tai informacija, kuri yra žinoma tiek adresatui, tiek ir adresantui. Tuo tarpu naujoji informacija apibrėžiama, kaip informacija žinoma tik kalbėtojui. Bendraudamas kalbėtojas naudoja du pagrindinius būdus arba aplinkas tam, kad galėtų perteikti duotąją informaciją: lingvistinę aplinką ir nelingvistinę aplinką. duotumo sąvoka yra vartojama gana seniai. Ji yra siejama su profesoriaus Mathesus‘o vardu, kuris įvedė tokias sąvokas kaip funkcinė sakinio perspektyva, naujoji informacija, duotoji informacija, tema ir rema. Bendraudamas, kalbėtojas turi adresatui išskirti objektus, kuriuos jis nurodo. Jis ar ji daro tai tam tikrų žodžių pagalba.. Duotosios informacijos žymeklių tipai priklauso nuo aplinkos, kurioje yra minimas objektas. Šio magistro darbo tikslas yra pademonstruoti kaip realizuojamas duotumas lingvistinėje ir nelingvistinėje aplinkoje literatūriniame tekste, dialoguose bei monologuose. Pagrindinį tikslą detalizuojantys darbo uždaviniai yra šie: apžvelgti mokslinę literatūrą susijusią su duotumo sąvoka ir jos realizavimu kalboje, išsiaiškinti ir aprašyti kokių lingvistinių priemonių pagalba duotumas realizuojamas monologuose bei dialoguose, palyginti kaip skirtingos priemonės yra naudojamas duotumui išreikšti... [toliau žr. visą tekstą]

New evidence is provided for a grammatical principle that singles out contrastive focus (Rooth 1996; Truckenbrodt 1995) and distinguishes it from discourse-new “informational” focus. Since the prosody of discourse-given constituents may also be distinguished from discourse-new, a three-way distinction in representation is motivated. It is assumed that an F-feature marks just contrastive focus (Jackendoff 1972, Rooth 1992), and that a G-feature marks discoursegiven constituents (Féry and Samek-Lodovici 2006), while discoursenew is unmarked. A crucial argument for G-marking comes from second occurrence focus (SOF) prosody, which arguably derives from a syntactic representation where SOF is both F-marked and G-marked. This analysis relies on a new G-Marking Condition specifying that a contrastive focus may be G-marked only if the focus semantic value of its scope is discourse-given, i.e. only if the contrast itself is given.

Kinder erwerben Passivstrukturen später als die meisten anderen syntaktischen Strukturen. Die vorliegende Studie beschäftigt sich mit der Frage, ob dies auf informationsstrukturelle Faktoren zurückzuführen sein könnte. Probleme beim Erwerb von Passivsätzen wurden in vorhergehenden Studien unter anderem auf ihre geringe Inputfrequenz oder bestimmte syntaktische Charakteristika von Passivsätzen zurückgeführt. Jedoch konnte bisher keiner dieser Ansätze ihr spätes Erwerbsalter umfassend erklären. Während Aktivsätze, die kanonische, unmarkierte Satzstruktur im Deutschen, in jeglichem Diskurskontext verwendet werden können, werden Passivsätze fast ausschließlich dann verwendet, wenn der Patiens der beschriebenen Handlung schon vorerwähnt war und/ oder als Topik eines Satzes fungieren soll. Passivsätze sind also nicht in jedem Kontext informationsstrukturell adäquat. Kinder haben im Gegensatz zu Erwachsenen aufgrund ihrer geringeren syntaktischen Fähigkeiten Probleme, Sätze zu verarbeiten, die nicht in einem adäquaten Kontext stehen. Der Einfluss dieser Kontextbedingungen auf das Satzverständnis wurde in der vorliegenden Studie bei deutschsprachigen Kindern untersucht. Kindern zwischen 3;0 und 4;11 Jahren wurden Aktiv- oder Passivsätze präsentiert, denen informationsstrukturell adäquate, inadäquate oder neutrale Kontextsätze vorangingen. Wie erwartet verstanden die Kinder Aktivsätze besser als Passivsätze und 4-jährige Kinder zeigten bessere Leistungen als 3-jährige. Es gab Tendenzen, dass die 3-jährigen Kinder Passivsätze besser, aber Aktivsätze schlechter verstanden, wenn ihr Subjekt vorerwähnt wurde. Statistisch signifikante Kontexteffekte fanden sich jedoch im Gegensatz zu einer vergleichbaren Studie mit englischsprachigen Kindern (Gourley und Catlin, 1978) in keiner Testbedingung. Außerdem zeigte sich, dass die Kinder Passivsätze insgesamt besser und Aktivsätze insgesamt schlechter verstanden als englischsprachige Kinder in anderen Studien. Die Ergebnisse werden mit dem Competition Modell (Mac Whinney und Bates, 1987) und einer Sprachverarbeitungstheorie von Stromswold (2002) erklärt. Außerdem wird diskutiert, warum die deutschsprachigen Kinder in der vorliegenden Studie andere Sprachverständnisleistungen zeigten als englischsprachige Kinder. / Children acquire passive constructions later than most other syntactic structures. The purpose of the present study was to investigate whether this phenomenon can be explained with an information-structural account. In former studies problems in the acquisition of the passive voice have often been attributed to its low input frequency or to its specific syntactic characteristics. However, none of these theories could sufficiently explain the late age of acquisition of passive structures. Sentences in the active voice, the canonical, unmarked, structure in German can be used in any discourse context while passive sentences are almost always used if the patient of the described action is GIVEN in the context and/ or serves as the TOPIC of the sentence. Therefore passive sentences cannot be used in any context without violating information structural constraints. It is more difficult for children – due to their less developed syntactic abilities – than for adults to process sentences which do not occur in an information structurally appropriate context. The present study examines the influence of the context on sentence comprehension abilities of German speaking children. Children at the age of 3;0 – 4;11 years were presented active or passive sentences in an information structurally appropriate, inappropriate or neutral context. As expected, children comprehended active sentences better than passive sentences, and 4-year olds performed better than 3-year olds. There was a tendency that 3-year olds comprehended passive sentences better but active sentences worse if the subject of the sentence was GIVEN in the context. However, there were no statistically significant context effects, in contrast to a similar study with English-speaking children (Gourley and Catlin, 1978). In addition, it could be shown that German-speaking children comprehended passive sentences better than English-speaking children in other studies. The results are explained with the Competition Model (Mac Whinney and Bates, 1987) and Stromswold’s (2002) theory of language processing. It is also discussed why German-speaking children showed different language comprehension abilities than English-speaking children.

In a production experiment and two follow-up perception experiments on read German we investigated the (de-)coding of discourse-new, inferentially and textually accessible and given discourse referents by prosodic means. Results reveal that a decrease in the referent’s level of givenness is reflected by an increase in its prosodic prominence (expressed by differences in the status and type of accent used) providing evidence for the relevance of different intermediate types of information status between the poles given and new. Furthermore, perception data indicate that the degree of prosodic prominence can serve as the decisive cue for decoding a referent’s level of givenness.

The aim of the present study is to cast new light on the nature of definiteness marking in Moroccan Arabic (MA). Previous work on the dialect group has described its definiteness system as similar to that of other Arabic varieties, where indefinite entities are unmarked and a "definite article" /l-/ modifies nouns to convey a definite meaning. Such descriptions, however, do not fully account for the behavior of MA nouns in spontaneous natural speech, as found in the small self-collected corpus that informs the study: on one hand, /l-/ can and regularly does co-occur with indefinite meanings; on the other, a number of nouns can exhibit definiteness even in the absence of /l-/. In response to these challenges, the study puts forth an alternate synchronic description the system, arguing that the historical definite article */l-/ has in fact lost its association with definiteness and has instead become lexicalized into an unmarked form of the noun that can appear in any number of semantic contexts. Relatedly, the study argues that the historically indefinite form *Ø has come under heavy syntactic constraints and can best be described as derived from the new unmarked form via a process of phonologically conditioned disfixation, represented {- /l/}. At the same time, MA has also apparently retained an older particle ši and developed an article waħəd, both of which can be used to express different types of indefinite meanings. To support the plausibility of this new description, the study turns to the linguistic history of definiteness in MA, describing how a combination of internal and external impetuses for change likely pushed the dialect toward article loss, a development upon which semantic reanalysis and syntactic restructuring of other forms then followed. If the claim that MA no longer overtly marks definiteness is indeed correct, the study could have a significant impact on work that used previous MA descriptions to make grammaticality judgments, as well as be of value to future work on processes of grammaticalization and language contact. / text