Re: topic/focus or theme/rheme

At 07:51 PM 2/23/99 +0000, Raymond A. Brown wrote:
>At 8:56 pm -0500 22/2/99, Tim Smith wrote:
>>You're right, it's quite clear that the fronted constituent in a German main
>>clause is a topic, not a focus, and thus that German is a clear exception to
>>the "focus-immediately-before-finite-verb" tendency.
>
>I forgot to add that Fox does add a rider to the effect that the theme/
>rheme (his terms, i.e. topic/ comment) interpretation is not always
>appropriate.  The examples he gives are:
>(i) Jetzt fahren wir los    - now we're off.
>(ii) Da kommt er schon.     - there he is comming sure enough.
>(iii) Es regnet wieder.     - it's raining again.
>
>(My translations - some adverbs like 'schon' are very idiomatic.)
>
>Fox concedes that "jetzt" in the first sentence could arguably be
>considered the topic in that refers to 'what is happening now'.  But in
>(ii) and (iii) it is difficult to see how 'da' and, still less, 'es' can be
>topics.
I'd say (speaking totally off the top of my head) that these sentences don't
really have topics (except maybe (i)); they're all new information.  I think
this kind of sentence is called "presentational".  But the German syntax
requires that there be _something_ in the topic position, to maintain the
mandatory verb-second order.  So "jetzt", "da", and "es" in these examples
are "dummy" topics that function primarily as place-holders.
>
>>Well, I guess that's enough windy speculation for one night.  But I do have
>>some questions for you:
>>
>>1.  What's the basic word order of subordinate clauses in Welsh?  (And is it
>>the same in the other Celtic languages?)
>[snip very interesting stuff about Celtic subordinate clauses]
>>2.  How do Latin and Greek use word order to mark topic and/or focus?
>
>Oh dear - it's nearly half a century since I and my schoolmates were doing
>Greek & Latin prose compositions  :=(
>
>Latin & Classical Greek are basically of the SOV type and are certainly
>topic first.  This probably accounts for the fondness of both languages for
>beginning sentences with conjugations, either picking up, contrasting or
>highlighting the topic.  Indeed, in both languages many co-ordinating
>conjunctions are never used first word but come second after the topic.
>Doesn't German have quite a few co-ordinating comjunctions which behave in
>a similar way?
>
>In Latin it is not at uncommon to start with a relative pronoun that refers
>back to the previous sentence and means "And he...", "And they...." etc. We
>may even have "Quod" (neuter sing) or "Quae" (neuter plural) picking up the
>whole idea expressed in the previous sentence. "And this [situation].....".
>And, of course, we even have the not uncommon clause "Quae cum ita
>essent.." (Since these things are so) beginning sentences  :)
>
>As for focus - I tread more cautiously.  But we were told those many years
>back that the two places in a Latin sentence to receive emphasis were the
>beginning and end.  I think our masters, tho not knowing it, we saying that
>if we want to focus something, move it to the end after the finite verb.
>The least important place is mid sentence, which is why 'esse' (to be) can
>often be found there.
This is very interesting.  I actually took three years of Latin in high
school, but gained very little understanding of how "free word order"
actually worked to emphasize some things and de-emphasize others.  (I wasn't
exposed to the concepts of topic, comment, focus, etc. until quite a few
years later.)  But when I started conlanging, my first, intuitive idea of an
"optimal" word order (based at least partly on my admittedly fuzzy and
confused understanding of how Latin worked) was something like:

topic - everything else - verb - focus

That's basically the way my first "serious" conlang, Meitzanathein, works.
But the more I learned about language typology and universals, the more I
tended to back away from that, because it seemed to contradict everything I
was reading about how most "free-word-order" languages put the focus
immediately _before_ the verb (regardless of where the verb is in relation
to the rest of the clause).  But if Latin actually _does_ work that way
(which is what it sounds like you're saying), then why shouldn't other
languages do likewise?

But more recently, I've read that there are other focus positions; they just
aren't as widespread.  For instance, I think (although I'm not sure) that
the Slavic languages, which are basically SVO, tend to put the focus at the
end.  (Can any of you Russian or Polish speakers out there shed any light on
that?)
>
>In subordinate clauses the verb-final position seems to have been more
>firmly adhered to mainly, I think, because the verb clearly does mark the
>boundary to the clause, so it may be - I haven't really examined this -
>that we'd find something more close to German in such cluses if focus is
>required, i.e. a preverbal position.
>
>Of course, one must remember that Classical Latin was essentially a
>literary conlang, built out of the raw materials of the spoken language of
>the Romans and contructed very much after late Classical Greek models (as
>the Romans understood them) and rhetorical considerations such rhythmic
>patterns certainly played a part in both verse and prose writing.  But I
>think in prose such devises would be found to enhance focusing.
>
>Ancient Greek is, in many ways, a much more interesting case.  In the
>earliest period there were several dialects and not much standardization;
>the latter came about slowly with the gradual - and certainly not unopposed
>- rise of Athens as a cultural center leading to the development of an
>internationalized Athens-based koine after the Alexandrine conquests.
>There is a great deal more variation from the "norm" among the Greeks and I
>suspect the subject of topic-comment and focus in Ancient Greek could well
>form a weighty tome and provide ample material for a doctoral thesis.
>Alas, I have neither the time nor the means for doing this  :=(
>
>Ray.
>
Thanks!  This is very interesting and enlightening.

-------------------------------------------------
Tim Smith
timsmith@global2000.net

The human mind is inherently fallible.  It sees patterns where there is only
random clustering, overestimates and underestimates odds depending on
emotional need, ignores obvious facts that contradict already established
conclusions.  Hopes and fears become detailed memories.  And absolutely
correct conclusions are drawn from completely inadequate evidence.
        - Alexander Jablokov, _Deepdrive_ (Avon Books, 1998, p. 269)