Friday 27 March 2020

Fawcett's Understanding Of Given And New Information

Fawcett (2010: 138n):
20. As stated e[a]rlier, "Given" is essentially 'that which is not marked as New' — but only so long as it precedes the element marked as "New". It is in fact only possible for the text analyst to make a guess at which portion of the text is 'Given' and which is 'New' by drawing on other evidence than intonation, such as the meaning of pronouns, so that we cannot automatically treat every element that is not marked as "New" as "Given". However, what comes after the New in the same information unit is indeed always 'Given'. 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Given and New are elements (of information group structure). Elements that are "marked as" Given or New are elements of other structures, such as those of the metafunctional structures of the clause, such as Theme, comment Adjunct or Token. However, given that Fawcett has been shown to confuse functional element (e.g. Token) with formal constituent (e.g. nominal group), this can also be read as the constituent that is marked as New.

[2] To be clear, Given is the element that is not New, regardless of whether it precedes or follows the New.

[3] To be clear, the "meaning of pronouns" provides no criteria for distinguishing Given and New. An information unit is realised by a tone group whose tonic prominence identifies the grammatical element that is the focus of New information, and whose tonic foot marks where the New element ends (so that what follows within the unit is Given). What is true is that the beginning of the New element in an information unit is rarely made explicit phonologically — e.g. by rhythm — and consequently other factors, such as preceding co-text and the inherent 'givenness' of some items, are used to distinguish preceding Given from following New. See Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 116). 

[4] To be clear, this is both true and proof that Fawcett is well aware that New and Given are elements of the information unit, rather than the clause, despite presenting them as elements of the clause in his arguments.

No comments:

Post a Comment