Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T20:01:32.615Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cognitive Strategies in the Formation of Topic Constructions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

Elena S. Maslova
Elena S. Maslova
Affiliation:
St. Petersburg Insitute for Linguistic Studies, Tučkov per., 9, 199053, St. Petersburg, Russia. Email [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

An attempt is made to incorporate the concept of sentence topic into a general model of sentence formation. The article begins with a morphosyntactic typology of topic constructions attested across languages, followed by an examination of the types of discourse contexts in which these constructions are employed by different languages, which allows a correlation to be established between formal types of topic constructions and their discourse functions. It turns out that both the formal distinctions between major types of topic constructions and their functional distribution obtain a straightforward explanation, if they are taken to be derived by different cognitive strategies. A model based on this idea makes it possible to explain some aspects of interaction between formal properties of languages and their relative “topic-prominence”.

Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 17 , Special Issue 2: Special issue on LINGUISTIC TYPOLOGY , December 1994 , pp. 127 - 139
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bernini, G. 1992a. Establishing Themes in Italian Written Narrative. In Bernini, G. & Ricca, D. (eds.), Topics. EUROTYP Working Papers 1/2.Google Scholar
Bernini, G. 1992b. The Sentence Topic in the Languages of Europe. EUROTYP. Working Papers 1/3.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. 1976. The Language of Thought. Sussex, UK: Hassocks.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1976. Topic, Pronoun and Grammatical Agreement. In Li, Ch. (ed.), Subject and Topic. New York, San Francisco, London: Academic Press, pp. 9–188.Google Scholar
Givon, T. 1988. The Pragmatics of Word Order: Predictability, Importance and Attention. In Hammond, M., Moravcsik, E. A. & Wirth, J. R. (eds.), Studies in Syntactic Typology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 243–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golovko, E. V. & Vaxtin, N. B. 1992. Jazyk komandorskix aleutov. Synaksis, M. S., Gundel, J. K. 1988. Universals of Topic-comment Structure. In Hammond, M., Moravcsik, E. A. & Wirth, J. R. (eds.), Studies in Syntactic Typology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,. pp. 209–242.Google Scholar
Kasevič, V. B. 1988. Semantika, Syntaksis, Morphologija. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Kozinskij, I. S. & Sokoiovskaja, N. K. 1984. O sootnošenii aktual'nogo i sintaksiceskogo členenija v sinxhronii i diaxronii. In Solncev, V. M. (ed.), Vostočnoje jazykoznanije: Grammatičeskoje i aktual'noje členenije predloženija. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Li, Ch. N. & Thompson, S. A. 1976. Subject and Topic: A New Typology of Languages. In Li, Ch. (ed.), Subject and Topic. New York, San Francisco, London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Paršin, P. B. 1983. Tema i topik: k sootnošeniju poniatij. In Voprosy vostočnogo jazykoznanija. Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
Stassen, L. 1985. Comparison and Universal Grammar. Oxford: Basil Biackwell.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. 1964. Identifying Reference and Truth Values. Theoria XXX, 96–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. & Foley, W. A. 1980. Role and Reference Grammar. In Moravcsik, E. A. (ed.), Current Approaches to Syntax. Syntax and Semantics. New York: Academic Press, Vol. 13, pp. 329–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar