Explanation
Information structure organises an utterance according to what is treated as accessible, new, contrasted, or especially prominent. Grammatically well-formed sentences may describe the same state of affairs while answering different questions. “Mara reviewed the report” can focus Mara, the report, or the reviewing, depending on stress, word order, and context. Information structure therefore connects sentence form with assumptions about the interlocutors' knowledge. It shows that communication not only conveys content but continuously models what can serve as a point of departure and where shared knowledge is intended to change.
Movement of thought
1. One state of affairs permits several grammatical formulations. 2. Speakers estimate which information is already accessible. 3. Topic, focus, word order, and prominence distribute givenness and contrast. 4. Hearers relate the form to the explicit or implicit question under discussion. 5. The utterance updates common information at a selectively marked point.
Scientific use case
Experiments can systematically vary contextual questions and measure which word orders or prosodic prominences speakers judge appropriate. Corpus studies can compare how languages mark givenness, contrast, and novelty through different grammatical resources.
Example
“MARA reviewed it” answers “Who reviewed the report?” with person focus. “Mara reviewed the REPORT” responds to “What did Mara review?” by selecting another set of alternatives.
Counterexample
Initial position does not automatically make an element a topic, and loud stress does not by itself constitute focus. The relation among form, alternatives, contextual question, and assumed knowledge is decisive.
Distinction
Distinguish information structure from syntax and informational content. Syntax supplies formal possibilities, while information structure recruits them for communicative organisation; propositional content may remain constant when topic and focus change.
Effect on thought and perception
Information structure directs attention within a proposition and turns the same state of affairs into different communicative answers.
Resonance
An utterance answers a prior field of knowledge; focus marks the point at which that field is intended to change.
Cite this entry
Reich, Michael (Hrsg./ed.): „Information structure“. Atlas der Sprache, AT-SYN-W0148. ATLAS 260, data model 1.6.0. https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-SYN-W0148The address remains stable; editorial content may evolve. Editorial reading state: 2026-10-15. Include your access date for precise references.
Historical background
Jespersen separates grammatical relations from the organisation of what a hearer already knows and what an utterance contributes. By examining several older definitions of subject and predicate, he shows that one sentence can support different analyses depending on the question being asked. This provides a historical conceptual stage for information structure, not an occurrence of every later technical distinction. The Atlas can examine how a discourse establishes a starting point, introduces an update and assigns prominence. Those functions need not align with subject, predicate or word order in one fixed way. Jespersen’s critique is especially useful against treating a single grammatical diagram as a complete diagram of understanding. Later terminology and language-specific diagnostics require further, explicit theoretical witnesses.
How conceptual history changes the analysis
Information structure becomes analysable when givenness, topical starting point and focus are diagnosed separately. Frequent overlap does not make them synonyms or ordinary grammatical functions.
References for the historical section
- Otto Jespersen, The Philosophy of Grammar, work first published 1924; inspected later printing with November 1934 afterword, exact printing year unresolved · Chapter XI, psychological subject/predicate discussion, printed pp. 147–149
Selected historical witness, not a complete genealogy or a first English attestation. Atlas comparisons and applications are original editorial interpretations. OCR of a later printing containing a 1934 afterword. The catalogue’s 1924 date identifies the work’s first publication, not the inspected copy. Historical judgments about languages and social groups require critical distance.