Firbas (1992) and the other Czech scholars approach(ed) given and new in terms of FSP theory, a theory of Grammar that looks at how the constituents of the sentence work to develop communication. As mentioned previously in 2.2 above, sentence elements ability to develop the communication forward is measured according to CD phenomenon introduced by Firbas (ibid). Sentence constituents vary in terms of the degree of CD; only the constituent with the highest CD can develop the communication. CD is determined by the interplay of factors, contextual, semantic and linearity factors on the written level accompanied by intonation on the spoken level.
Given and new information is part of how CD is allocated and it belongs to the contextual factor (ibid). Firbas (ibid) distinguished information into ‘context- dependent’ and ‘context- independent’ which correspond to the given and new in terms of the concept of the “retrievability/ irretrievability from the immediately relevant context” which Firbas introduced into FSP. Firbas (ibid: 22) stated the reason for introducing the immediate relevant context concept into the FSP framework: “in regards to FSP, the concept of known information must be considerably narrowed. This necessitates the introduction of the concept of the immediately relevant verbal and situational context”. Daneš (1974) and
50
Firbas (1992) stated that resorting to context to determine the status of information is not of much help as it is a complex phenomenon. Daneš (1974: 109-110) pointed out that the notions of given (known, old) and new (unknown) information have relative and very broad (if not vague) character (cited in Firbas, 1992: 21). Also, the Czech linguists and Prague school encounter the unresolved issue of the retrievability span: the uncertainty for how long a given item will remain given without the need to be mentioned again. Mathesius (1939) who distinguished information into contextually given in terms of its availability in the text and Daneš (1974: 110) who defined given as “information that is “derivable” from the context, situation or the common knowledge of the speaker and the listener” did not address this issue. Therefore, within the FSP’s framework, Firbas (1992) argued that immediate relevant context is an important step towards narrowing the broad notion of the given/ new information.
So for Firbas (ibid: 37), “in regard to the immediate communicative step, information is given (old, known) if it is present in, and hence retrievable from, the immediately relevant preceding context and/ or if the referent suggesting it is present in, and hence retrievable from, the immediately relevant situational context”. Firbas (ibid: 22) further accounted for the distinction of the information as follows:
a) Information that, though conveying knowledge shared by the interlocutors, must be considered unknown in regard to the immediately relevant communicative step to be taken and in this sense irretrievable from the context.
b) Information that not only conveys common knowledge shared by the interlocutors but is fully retrievable from the context even in regard to the immediately relevant communicative step.
Then the newness (irretrievability) and givenness (retrievability) of an item in Firbas’ framework is identified in terms of its status at the immediately relevant context rather than and regardless of its status in the wider context as Firbas (ibid: 31) showed: “a piece of information may be retrievable or irretrievable from the part of context outside the immediately relevant contextual sphere, and hence dependent on or independent of this part of context. However, in regard to the immediately relevant communicative step, in other words in regard to the immediately relevant communicative orientation of the sentence, it is not the wider but the immediately relevant, context that plays the decisive and determinative role”.
51
In comparison with Halliday’s views that are applied in the present context, it could be argued that there is a common point between Halliday and Firbas in that Halliday’s approach allows the presenting of information as Given or New regardless of being actually given or new respectively in the wider context. Yet, Halliday is different from Firbas; Halliday determined retrievability/ irretrievability in terms of the wider (physical) context whereas Firbas in terms of the immediate context. And this issue is left unresolved in Halliday’s argument on given/ new. So, it could be argued that Firbas’ immediate communicative context provides a solution within the FSP framework to the issue of the recoverability and how to distinguish given and new (i.e. it can be used as an analytical tool). But, Firbas givenness and newness are graded not binary as Halliday which is another difference between Halliday and Firbas because of the CD phenomenon: if several sentence elements are given or new, the gradability of their givenness or newness is determined in terms of their contribution of pushing the communication forward. So, in comparison with Halliday as an analytical tool, FSP does not allow for an easy discussion of binary Given/New as Given/ New in terms of FSP does not make a lot of sense. Yet, compared to spoken data, Firbas’ approach is easier to apply on the written data as there is the complexity that the intonation centre (information focus, tonic syllable in Halliday’s terms) is not carried by the highest CD element that is determined by the contextual, linearity semantic factors (i.e. the case of the non- correspondence between intonation and other factors in determining the highest CD element) as explained in 2.2, p. 15. In case of the non-correspondence, the prosodic factor is the determining factor and the element that is made intonation centre will carry the communication forward. Yet, Firbas’ FSP is worth considering to examine spoken data especially that it is not yet being used except on written text by Firbas (1992) and some of his students. Adopting Firbas’ FSP to examine the map task dialogue is addressed as an extension of the current study in Chapter Eight.