Disentangling topicality effects
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.60923/issn.2785-0943/23050Keywords:
topic, topic related constructions, corpus-based, cross-linguistic, information structureAbstract
This paper introduces the special issue Disentangling Topicality Effects. The contributions are the result of a selection from the homonymous workshop organized at the 55th meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, held in Bucharest on 25–26 August 2022. They offer empirical analyses of topic markers or topic-related constructions with the aim of critically exploring their functions and the relation of the latter to the concept of topic. Before analytically presenting the specific goals and results of each paper, we provide an overview of the category of topic. Without purporting to be exhaustive, we highlight the theoretical evolution of the concept, as well as some of the gaps that remain in its description, with the hope that this will contribute to a broader scholarly debate on the subject.
Downloads
References
Abubakari, Hasiyatu. 2021. Topic marking in Kusaal and selected Mabia (Gur) languages of West Africa. Linguistics 59(1). 175–206. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2020-0257.
Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.
Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar. 2009. Contrasting and turn transition: Prosodic projection with parallel-opposition constructions. Journal of Pragmatics 41(11). 2271–2294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.03.007.
Baumann, Stefan & Petra B. Schumacher. 2011. (De-)accentuation and the processing of information status: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Language and Speech 55(3). 361–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830911422184.
Bickel, Balthasar. 2015. “Distributional Typology: Statistical Inquiries into the Dynamics of Linguistic Diversity.” In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog, The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, 901–923. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Birner, Betty J. & Gregory L. Ward. 1998. Information status and noncanonical word order in English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Boro, Krishna. 2021. Focus enclitics in Bodo. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 44(1). 75–112. https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.19005.bor.
Büring, Daniel. 1997. The meaning of topic and focus. London: Psychology Press.
Büring, Daniel. 1999. Topic. In Peter Bosch & Rob van der Sandt (eds.), Focus: Linguistic, cognitive, and computational perspectives, 142–165. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chafe, Wallace. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and points of view. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 25–56. New York: Academic Press.
Chafe, Wallace. 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Chen, Ping. 1996. Pragmatic interpretations of structural topics and relativization in Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 26(3). 389–406.
Cimmino, Doriana. 2023. On the topic-marking function of left dislocations and preposings: Variation across spoken and written Italian and English. In Alessandra Barotto & Simone Mattiola (eds.), Discourse phenomena in typological perspective, 337–368. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Cimmino, Doriana. 2024. Contrast and left dislocations. Beyond contrastive topics. In Brysbaert, Jorina & Lahousse, Karen. On the place of contrast in information structure: definition, types, encoding and annotation. Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs [TiLSM]. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Constant, Noah. 2014. Contrastive topic: Meanings and realizations. Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation.
Cresti, Emanuela & Massimo Moneglia. 2018. The illocutionary basis of information structure: Language into Act Theory. In Evangelia Adamou & Katharina Haude & Martine Vanhove (eds.), Information structure in lesser described languages: Studies in prosody and syntax, 359–401. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Däbritz, Chris Lasse. 2023. On the status of information structure markers: Evidence from North-Western Siberian languages. Studies in Language 47(1). 79–119. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.21043.dab.
Dalrymple, Mary & Irina Nikolaeva. 2011. Objects and information structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dyakonova, Marina. 2009. A phase-based approach to Russian free word order. Utrecht: LOT.
Endriss, Cornelia. 2009. Quantificational topics: A scopal treatment of exceptional wide scope phenomena. Dordrecht: Springer.
Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth. 2011. Cognitive foundations of topic-comment and foreground-background structure: Evidence from sign languages, cospeech gesture and homesign. Cognitive Linguistics 22(4). 691–718.
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1997. The dynamics of focus structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi & Shalom Lappin. 1979. Dominance and the functional explanation of island phenomena. Theoretical Linguistics 6(1–3). 41–86. https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.1979.6.1-3.41.
Féry, Caroline. 2007. Information structural notions and the fallacy of invariant correlates. In Caroline Féry, Gisbert Fanselow & Manfred Krifka (eds.), Interdisciplinary studies on information structure (ISIS) 6, 161–184. Potsdam: Universität Potsdam. http://opus.kobv.de/ubp/volltexte/2008/1969/index.html.
Firbas, Jan. 1964. On defining the theme in functional sentence analysis. Travaux linguistiques de Prague 1. 267–280.
Firbas, Jan. 1992. Functional sentence perspective in written and spoken communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Givón, Talmy. 1983. Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study, 1–42. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Gómez-González, María A. 1997. On theme, topic and givenness: The state of the art. Moenia 3. 135–155.
Gregory, Michelle L. & Laura A. Michaelis. 2001. Topicalization and left-dislocation: A functional opposition revisited. Journal of Pragmatics 33(11). 1665–1706. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00063-1.
Gundel, Jeanette K. 1974. The role of topic and comment in linguistic theory. Austin: University of Texas at Austin dissertation.
Gundel, Jeanette K. 1988. Universals of topic-comment structure. In Michael Hammond, Edith A. Moravcsik & Jessica R. Wirth (eds.), Studies in syntactic typology, 209–239. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Haiman, John. 1978. Conditionals are topics. Language 54(3). 564–589. https://doi.org/10.2307/412787.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2004. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Hodder Education.
Haselow, Alexander. 2017. Spontaneous spoken English: An integrated approach to the emergent grammar of speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108265089.
Heim, Irene. 1983. File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In Rainer Bäuerle, Christoph Schwarze & Arnim von Stechow (eds.), Meaning, use, and interpretation of language, 303–323. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Heusinger, Klaus von. 2002. Information structure and the partition of sentence meaning. In Eva Hajičová, Jiri Hana, Petr Sgall & Thomas Hoskovec (eds.), Prague linguistic circle papers 4. 275–309. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hörberg, Thomas. 2018. Functional motivations behind direct object fronting in written Swedish: A corpus-distributional account. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.502.
Hornby, Peter A. 1971. Surface structure and the topic-comment distinction: A developmental study. Child Development 42(6). 1975–1988.
Jacobs, Joachim. 2001. The dimensions of topic-comment. Linguistics 39(4). 641–681. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2001.027.
Jaeger, Tim F. & David Oshima. 2002. Towards a dynamic model of topic marking. In Pre-proceedings of the Information Structure in Context Workshop, 153–167. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart.
Jin, Qinghua & Tomoyo Takagi. 2021. First-person pronouns with and without wa in parenthetical inserts in Japanese telling sequences. Journal of Pragmatics 186. 321–340.
Kerr, Betsy. 2014. Left dislocation in French: Information structure vs. (?) interactional linguistics. In Stacey Katz Bourns & Lindsy L. Myers (eds.), Perspectives on linguistic structure and context: Studies in honor of Knud Lambrecht, 223–240. Pragmatics & Beyond 224. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kim, Ilkyu. 2015. Is Korean -(n)un a topic marker? On the nature of -(n)un and its relation to information structure. Lingua 154. 87–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.010.
Kim, Kyu-hyun. 2021. Korean “topic” particle nun as a categorization resource for organizing retro-sequence: Redressing the situated action “on the periphery”. Journal of Pragmatics 183. 225–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.07.012.
Krifka, Manfred & Renate Musan. 2012. Information structure: Overview and linguistic issues. In Manfred Krifka & Renate Musan (eds.), The expression of information structure, 1–44. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. http://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110261608/9783110261608.1/9783110261608.1.xml.
Kuno, Susumu. 1972. Functional sentence perspective: A case study from Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry 3(3). 269–320.
Kwon, Hyun-Jung & Si-Eun Rim & Kyu-hyun Kim. 2021. Formulating wh-questions in Korean adult-child conversation: “Subject”, “topic”, and “zero” particle as interactional resources. Journal of Pragmatics 180. 153–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.04.026.
Lambrecht, Knud. 1981. Topic, antitopic and verb agreement in non-standard French. Pragmatics & Beyond 2(6). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pb.ii.6.
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lambrecht, Knud. 1996. On the formal and functional relationship between topics and vocatives: Evidence from French. In Adele E. Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language, 267–288. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lambrecht, Knud. 2000. When subjects behave like objects: An analysis of the merging of S and O in sentence-focus constructions across languages. Studies in Language 24(3). 611–682. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.24.3.06lam.
Lambrecht, Knud & Laura Michaelis. 1998. Sentence accent in information questions: Default and projection. Linguistics and Philosophy 21. 477–544. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005327212709.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2013. Reference-point constructions. In Mouton classics: From syntax to cognition, from phonology to text, 413–450. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
LaPolla, Randy J. 2009. Chinese as a topic-comment (not topic-prominent and not SVO) language. In Janet Xing (ed.), Studies of Chinese linguistics: Functional approaches, 9–22. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
LaPolla, Randy J. 2019. Arguments for seeing theme-rheme and topic-comment as separate functional structures. In J. R. Martin, Y. J. Doran & Giacomo Figueredo (eds.), Systemic functional language description: Making meaning matter, 162–186. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351184533.
Lee, Chungmin. 2007. Contrastive (predicate) topic, intonation, and scalar meanings. In Chungmin Lee, Matthew Gordon & Daniel Büring (eds.), Topic and focus: Cross-linguistic perspectives on meaning and intonation, 151–175. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4796-1_9.
Li, Charles N. (ed.). 1976. Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press.
Maslova, Elena & Giuliano Bernini. 2006. Sentence topic in the languages of Europe and beyond. In Giuliano Bernini & Marcia L. Schwartz (eds.), Pragmatic organization of discourse in the languages of Europe, 67–120. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Matić, Dejan. 2022. Alternatives to information structure. In Davide Garassino & Daniel Jacob (eds.), When data challenges theory: Non-prototypical, unexpected and paradoxical evidence in the field of information structure, 91–111. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Matsumoto, Kazuko. 2003. Intonation units in Japanese conversation: Syntactic, informational and functional structures. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
McNally, Louise. 1998. On the linguistic encoding of information packaging instructions. In Peter W. Culicover & Louise McNally (eds.), The limits of syntax, 161–184. Syntax and Semantics 29. New York: Academic Press.
Mithun, Marianne. 1984. Is basic word order universal? In Russell S. Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse, 281–328. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1075/tsl.11.14mit/html.
Morita, Emi & Kyu-hyun Kim. 2022. Revisiting grammatical particles from an interactional perspective: The case of the so-called “subject” and “topic” particles as pragmatic markers in Japanese and Korean: An introduction. Journal of Pragmatics 188. 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.11.014.
Myachykov, Andriy & Dominic Thompson & Christoph Scheepers & Simon Garrod. 2011. Visual attention and structural choice in sentence production across languages. Language and Linguistics Compass 5(2). 95–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00265.x.
Nakagawa, Natsuko. 2020. Information structure in spoken Japanese. Topics at the Grammar-Discourse Interface 8. Berlin: Language Science Press. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4291753.
Netz, Hadar & Ron Kuzar. 2007. Three marked theme constructions in spoken English. Journal of Pragmatics 39(2). 305–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.04.007.
Ozerov, Pavel. 2021. Multifactorial information management: Summing up the emerging alternative to information structure. Linguistics Vanguard 7(1). 2020039.
Ozerov, Pavel. 2024. Left dislocation in spoken Hebrew: It is neither topicalising, nor a construction. Linguistics, 63(4). 907-947. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2023-0174.
Pekarek-Doehler, Simona & Elwys De Stefani & Anne-Sylvie Horlacher. 2015. Time and emergence in grammar: Dislocation, topicalization and hanging topic in French talk-in-interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Portner, Paul. 2007. Instructions for interpretation as separate performatives. In Kerstin Schwabe & Susanne Winkler (eds.), On information structure, meaning and form: Generalizations across languages, 407–426. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Portner, Paul & Katsuhiko Yabushita. 1998. The semantics and pragmatics of topic phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 21(2). 117–157. https://doi.org/10.2307/25001699.
Prince, Ellen F. 1998. On the limits of syntax, with reference to left-dislocation and topicalization. In Peter W. Culicover & Louise McNally (eds.), The limits of syntax, 261–302. Syntax and Semantics 29. San Diego: Academic Press.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27(1). 53–94.
Repp, Sophie. 2011. Relevance topics. In Ingo Reich & Eva Horch & Dennis Pauly (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 15, 483–498. Saarbrücken: Universitaar – Saarland University Press.
Riester, Arndt & Tobias Schröer & Stefan Baumann. 2020. On the prosody of contrastive topics in German interviews. In Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2020, 280–284.
Roberts, Craige. 1996. Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In Jae Hak Yoon & Andreas Kathol (eds.), OSUWPL volume 49: Papers in semantics. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University, Department of Linguistics.
Schwarzschild, Roger. 1999. GIVENness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Ms., Rutgers University.
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Seržant, Ilja A., Daria Alfimova, Petr Biskup & Ivan Seržants. 2025. Efficient sentence processing significantly affects the position of objects in Russian. Linguistics. 1–38.
Shimojo, Mitsuaki. 2016. Saliency in discourse and sentence form: Zero anaphora and topicalization in Japanese. In Jocelyne M. M. Fernandez-Vest & Robert D. Van Valin Jr. (eds.), Information structuring of spoken language from a cross-linguistic perspective, 55–75. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Strawson, Peter F. 1964. Identifying reference and truth-values. Theoria 30(2). 96–118.
Swerts, Marc. 1997. Prosodic features at discourse boundaries of different strength. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 101(1). 514–521.
Tanaka, Hiroko. 2015. Action-projection in Japanese conversation: Topic particles wa, mo, and tte for triggering categorization activities. Frontiers in Psychology 6. 1113–1135. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01113.
Tao, Hongyin. 1996. Units in Mandarin conversation: Prosody, discourse, and grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tomioka, Satoshi. 2010. Contrastive topics operate on speech acts. In Malte Zimmermann & Caroline Féry (eds.), Information structure: Theoretical, typological, and experimental perspectives, 115–138. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tomlin, Russell S. 1995. Focal attention, voice, and word order: An experimental, cross-linguistic study. In Pamela A. Downing & Michael Noonan (eds.), Word order in discourse, 517–554. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Tomlin, Russell S. 1997. Mapping conceptual representations into linguistic representations: The role of attention in grammar. In Eric Pederson & Jan Nuyts (eds.), Language and conceptualization, 162–189. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139086677.007.
Vallduví, Enric. 1994. Detachment in Catalan and information packaging. Journal of Pragmatics 22(6). 573–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90031-0.
Vallduví, Enric & Elisabet Engdahl. 1996. The linguistic realization of information packaging. Linguistics 34(3). 459–519. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1996.34.3.459.
Vermeulen, Reiko. 2009. On the syntactic typology of topic marking: A comparative study of Japanese and Korean. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 21. 335–363.
Vydrina, Alexandra. 2020. Topicality in sentence focus utterances. Studies in Language 44(3). 501–547. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.18069.vyd.
van der Wal, Jenneke. 2015. Information structure, (inter)subjectivity and objectification. Journal of Linguistics 51(2). 425–464. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226714000541.
Wälchli, Bernhard. 2022. Selectives (“topic markers”) on subordinate clauses. Linguistics 60(5). 1539–1617. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2020-0242.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Doriana Cimmino, Pavel Ozerov
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
