Topic
1
Notions of Topic
1.1
Sentence Topic vs. Discourse Topic
(1)
Mr. Morgan is a careful researcher and a knowledgeable Semiticist, but his originality
leaves something to be desired. (Reinhart 1982: 1)
(a)
(1) is about Mr. Morgan
(b)
(1) ist about Mr. Morgan‘s scholarly capabilities

Sentence topic is the ‘address’ under which the assertion carried by the sentence
should be memorized.

Discourse topic is the question which is discussed in a (piece of) discourse

Are there useful tests which can discerne between the sentence and the
discourse topics?
NB – These notions are often not clearly differentiated in the literature. E.g. – Simon Dik
(Theory of Functional Grammar) calls newly introduced discourse referents new topics (e.g.
in: There was a young MAN in the street., ‘a young man’ would be new topic). What he
means are discourse topics; the problem is that Dik also uses the term topic as a label for
sentence topics >> terminological chaos.
1.2
Topic as a Constituent (Phrase)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
The hospital, nobody could help me there. (left dislocation)
Flowers, I hate the bees. (hanging topic)
As far as his illness is concerned, he spent quite some time in the hospital.
As for fire, the fireman were there quite soon.



1.3
Topic as a constituent needn’t be an argument/adjunct of the predicate >> it does
not have to be present in the assertive part of the utterance.
Topic as a constituent is always additionally formally marked (minimally with a pause,
often with special constructions)
Topic as a constituent does not have a uniform distribution in the languages of the
world. Some languages are considered topic prominent (Mandarin Chinese), since
topic constructions are one of the basic methods of sentence construction.
Topic as a Discourse Referent (Givón 1983)
Referential distance: the distance (in clauses or intonation units) between one reference
to a referent and the previous reference to the same referent.
Persistence: the number of times a referent is mentioned in the following discourse.


1.4
This use of the term ‘topic’ strongly diverges from the normal way in which this
term is used.
Topicality is not understood as one of the basic cognitive operations in the
construction of sentences, but rather as a prominence of a certain referent in the
consciousness of the interlocutors.
Topic as Old Information
(6)
When she was five years old, a child of my acquaintance announced a theory that she
was inhabited by rabbits. (Reinhart 1982: 12)
I met Peter yesterday. It was HIM that hit me, not Rose.
(7)


2
Example (6) shows that newly introduced referents can be used as topics, while it
is the ‘old’ information that is focused in (7).
The equation ‚old Information’ = Topic cannot be upheld.
Topic and ‚aboutness’
‘the peg on which the message is hung’ (Halliday 1970:161)
‘the hitching post for the new knowledge’ (Chafe 1987:28)
Definitions
‘The topic constituent identifies the entity or set of entities under which the information
expressed in the comment constituent should be stored in the C(ommon)G(ground)
content.’ (Krifka 1992: 31)
“Topic is relationally presupposed/given in relation to Focus in the sense that it is
independent of, and outside the scope of, what is predicated in Focus.” (frei nach
Gundel&Fretheim 2004)



Topics in a sentence contain instructions to the hearer how to process the
information.
Topics denote discourse referents to which the hearer should ascribe the asserted
content.
Topics determine the perspective from which the situation described by the sentence
is presented.
Symptoms of ‚aboutness’

The truth value of the sentence is determined from topic to comment, not the other
way around.
All ravens are black.
>> Check all the ravens. OK
>> Check all the black things. NOT OK

Perspective with symmetrical predicates
a. Felix goes out with Rosa.
b. Rosa goes out with Felix. (Reinhart 1982: 8)
(8)
(9)
 The choice of the definite description depends on the topicality.
(10) A woman with a small child came in first, and she ordered chicken fried steak. Next, a
young man holding a tennis racket came in. He handed the racket to her, and went to
the bar to get a beer. Another man and woman, who were late, came in. They
seemed to have been to a movie.
(a) The woman who ordered a chicken fried steak left first.
(b) ??? The woman who the man handed a racket to left first.
(Portner and Yabushita 1998)
(11)
Tests for topicality:
I say about X, that ...
As far as X is concerned, ...
As for X, ....
How does an ‚aboutness’ topic function?
(12)
Can you tell me something about our friends from school?
Peter now works in the university library.
Statistical vs. actual topicworthiness
The choice of the topic depends on the considerations on the part of the speaker concerning
the way s/he will make her/his intentions optimally transparent to the hearer. Statistically,
human, agentive, entity-like, familiar, etc. discourse referents are the most frequent topics
(statistical topicworthiness); the actual decision on the choice of the topical referent,
however, may run contrary to these statistical tendencies if the speaker’s intentions demand
it (actual topicworthiness). (Matić 2003: 88)
The only property which any topic (according to some) must have (as opposed to ‘usually
has’): it must refer to an entity in the reality. However:
 This Norwegian, Mary wants to MARRY him. (definite, specific / left-dislocated – Topic)
 A very clever Norwegian that I met yesterday, Mary wants to MARRY him. (indefinite,
specific / left-dislocated – Topic)
 A blond Norwegian, Mary wants to marry such a guy. (indefinite, non-specific / leftdislocated – Topic?)
3
(Semantic) Topic Types
Frame-setting vs. Aboutness Topics
e.g. Chinese-style topics vs. English-style topics (Chafe 1976)
‘In brief, ‚real’ [sc. Chinese-style] topics (...) are not so much ‚what the sentence is about’, as
‚the frame within the sentence holds. (Chafe 1976: 51)
(13) frame-setting
Physically, Peter is FINE.
In my dream Peter was a CROCODILE.
(14) aboutness
Peter felt GREAT physically.
Peter was a CROCODILE for a while.
Discourse status: Established vs. Non-established Topics
e.g. unpredictable vs. predictable topics Kuno 1978, activated vs. unactivated topics Gundel
1985, Schroeder 1995, non-ratified vs. ratified topics Lambrecht-Michaelis 1998, BellverMichaelis 1999
 Established Topics
The interlocutors agree what the sentence topic would be before the utterance (the typical
case: continuous topics which stretch over more than one sentence).
(15) I met Mary yesterday. She looked very tired. I greeted her kindly, but she failed to notice
me altogether, that’s how tired she was.
 Non-established Topics
The topical status of a referent is established by the utterance itself (the typical case: the
speaker establishes a new frame for the predication, i.e. the referential frame has changed).
(16) I met Mary yesterday. But Peter, I haven’t seen him for ages.
 Some languages differentiate these two types formally:
(17) Modern Greek
[context: I met Mary yesterday.]
(a) Non-established: Ala o Petros dhen itan mazi tis. [preverbal]
but the Petros not was with her
‚But Peter was not with her.’
(b) Established:
Ke mu ipe i Maria mu oti ine mazi me ton Petro. [postverbal]
and me said the M. my
that is with with the Petros
‚And my dear Maria told me that she is with Peter.’
Prototype approach – Jacobs 2001
Topic is a prototype category, defined through a number of features. Different topic types
have some of these features, but not necessarily all of them:
A.
B.
C.
D.
Informational separation: In (X Y), X is informationally separated from Y iff the semantic processing of utterances of (X Y) involves two steps, one for X and one for Y.
Semantic predication: In (X Y), X is the semantic subject and Y the semantic predicate
iff X specifies a variable in the semantic valency of an element in Y (...)
Addressation: In (X Y), X is the address for Y iff X marks the point in the speakerhearer knowledge where the information carried by Y has to be stored at the
moment of the utterance of (X Y).
Frame-setting: In (X Y), X is the frame for Y iff X specifies a domain of (possible) reality
to which the proposition expressed by Y is restricted.