The art of thinking · 4 · Comprehension and mental representation
Given–new contract
Also known as: Given-new contract, Given–new strategy, Given and new information
In psycholinguistics, the given–new contract is Herbert H. Clark and Susan E. Haviland’s account of comprehension in which readers expect each sentence to link new information to information already given; when the link is missing, they must build a bridging inference, which costs time and can fail.
- Cognitive psychology
- Reading comprehension
- Linguistics
In one sentence
Readers expect each sentence to tie new information to what is already given; missing links force bridging inferences that cost time.
Example
“Open the cover. The fuse is behind it.” links new (fuse) to given (cover). “Replace the F3 fuse. Open the cover first.” makes readers hold an unanchored fuse in mind and reorder the steps themselves.
What the research shows
Haviland and Clark (1974) showed that a target sentence (“The beer was warm”) was read faster after a context sentence that mentioned its antecedent directly (“We got some beer out of the trunk”) than after one that required an inference (“We checked the picnic supplies”). Clark and Haviland (1977) framed this as a contract between writer and reader: the writer marks what is given and what is new, and the reader attaches the new to the given.
Evidence status
The reading-time effect of direct versus bridged reference is well established and fits later models of comprehension (construction–integration, situation models). The linguistic distinction of given and new information is older (Prague School, Halliday). The contract describes a default expectation; skilled readers bridge easily when they have the background knowledge, novices less so.
How it applies
Linking each sentence to what the reader already has — referring back explicitly, putting known information first in a sentence, introducing a term before relying on it — lowers the inference load, especially for readers without domain knowledge. The design side (plain language, sequencing) is covered in the application glossary.
External references
- Haviland, S. E., & Clark, H. H. (1974). What’s new? Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13(5), 512–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(74)80003-4
How to read this pool
Entries, context cards and transitional topics
The art of thinking explains ways of thinking — where a method comes from, what it asks of you and how it was adapted later. You meet four kinds of content here, each with its own job:
- Glossary entry
- Defines one concept or method of thinking: its origin, an example and how it relates to neighboring ideas. “X vs. Y” sections set two methods side by side.
- Context card of the art of thinking
- A short, self-contained answer to one question about a way of thinking — its lineage, its steps, its limits. These cards are listed on The art of thinking only.
- Transitional topicBridges both pools
- A context card that bridges both pools: it shows how a way of thinking was adapted into documentation, analysis or quality practice. It sits with the reference context cards and is marked as transitional wherever it appears.
- Reference entry or context card
- Belongs to the Glossary & Norms Space on regulation, norms and engineering. Entries here link to one only where a method is also an established tool of documentation or quality work, such as the five whys or a user’s mental model.