Discourse and Grammar: Focussing and Defocussing in English [Reprint 2013 ed.] 9783111637754, 9783484410046

Citation preview

Forschung pStudium ¿¡¿Anglistik 4

Herausgegeben von Wolf-Dietrich Bald, Rudolf Emons und Leonhard Lipka

Peter Erdmann

Discourse and Grammar Focussing and defocussing in English

Max Niemeyer Verlag Tübingen 1990

CIP-Titelaufnahme der Deutschen Bibliothek Erdmann, Peter : Discourse and grammar : focussing and defocussing in English / Peter Erdmann. - Tübingen : Niemeyer, 1990 (Forschung & [und] Studium Anglistik ; 4) NE: GT ISBN 3-484-41004-3

ISSN 0178-7861

© Max Niemeyer Verlag GmbH & Co. KG, Tübingen 1990 Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeichening und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Printed in Germany. Druck: Weiheit-Druck GmbH, Darmstadt

Preface

Grammatical

structures,

in

addition

to being

describable

in

terms

of

f o r m and content, f u l f i l a function in speech or writing. In this monograph, the examination of a series of syntagms w i l l centre on two main functional aspects, those of focussing and defocussing. I w i l l

not adhere to any

of

the f o r m a l or functional linguistic theories which have so far f a i l e d to deal satisfactorily or in sufficient detail with the relevant data, but w i l l use a data-based presentation of the facts to attempt a critical

stock-

taking of the literature on the topics in question. I would like to thank my c o l l e a g u e . P r o f . Bald, f o r his encouragement with this work, and for his inclusion of it in the series "Forschung und Studium A n g l i s t i k " . I would particularly like to thank M s Birgit

Kellner,

who managed, despite adverse conditions, to convert my handwritten manuscript into a l e g i b l e f o r m .

Saarbrücken, M a r c h 1990

Peter

Erdmann

V

Contents

1.0

Introduction

1

1.1

The subject-matter to be investigated

2

1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2

Focus(sing) and defocussing Focus(sing) Defocussing

3 3 4

1.3 1.3.1 1.3.2 1.3.3 1.3.4

Functional differences Theme ( / rheme) Topic Information: given/ new Constituent weight

2.0

The English sentence

2.1 2.1.1 2.1.2

The nominal group Nominal pre-modification Nominal post-modification

14 15 17

2.2 2.2.1 2.2.1.1 2.2.1.2 2.2.1.3

The verbal group Verb modification Primary modifiers of the finite verbal group Secondary modifiers of the finite verbal group . . . . Modifiers of the non-finite verbal group

18 19 20 22 23

2.3

The adverbial group

24

3.0

Defocussing syntagms

27

3.1 3.1.1 3.1.1.1 3.1.1.1.1

Inversion Types of inversion Sentence-type inversion Independent interrogative clauses

28 29 30 30

6 7 8 9 10

13

VII

3.1.1.1.2 3.1.1.1.3 3.1.1.1.4 3.1.1.1.5 3.1.1.1.6 3.1.1.1.7 3.1.1.1.8 3.1.1.1.9 3.1.1.1.10 3.1.1.1.11 3.1.1.2 3.1.1.2.1 3.1.1.2.2 3.1.1.2.3 3.1.1.2.4 3.1.1.2.5 3.1.1.3 3.1.1.3.1 3.1.1.3.2 3.1.1.3.3

Dependent interrogative clauses Imperative sentences Exclamatory sentences Simple sentences expressing modality Adverbial relative clauses Accompanying clauses Appended clauses Conditional clauses Concessive and temporal clauses Comparative clauses Inversion of clause elements Negative expressions The absence of inversion after negative expressions. Negative correlative expressions Intensifying expressions Pro-elements Predicator inversion PRED inversion A D V / PREP inversion Ways of utilizing predicator inversion

31 31 33 33 34 34 35 35 36 36 36 37 38 39 40 41 41 42 44 47

3.2 3.2.1 3.2.1.1 3.2.1.2 3.2.1.3 3.2.1.4 3.2.1.5 3.2.1.6 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.3.1 3.2.3.2 3.2.4 3.2.4.1 3.2.4.1.1 3.2.4.1.1.1 3.2.4.1.1.2 3.2.4.1.1.2.1 3.2.4.1.1.2.2 3.2.4.1.1.2.3 3.2.4.1.2 3.2.4.1.3 3.2.4.1.4

There sentences The form there Nominal and adverbial there: homonymy or polysemy? The syntax of there The semantics of there The function of there The logic of there Alternatives to nominal there Concord in there sentences The verbal group Main verbs in there sentences Verb modifiers in there sentences The post-positioned nominal group Common nouns, pronouns and proper nouns Common nouns and determiners Indefinite determiners Definite determiners The This {those)/ that (those) Possessives and s forms Pronouns in there sentences Proper names The so-called "definite restriction"

51 53 58 59 59 60 62 63 65 67 67 73 78 79 79 79 82 82 86 87 88 90 91

VIII

3.2.4.2 3.2.4.3 3.2.4.3.1 3.2.4.3.1.1 3.2.4.3.1.2 3.2.4.3.1.3 3.2.4.3.1.4 3.2.4.3.1.5 3.2.4.3.2 3.2.4.3.2.1 3.2.4.3.2.1.1 3.2.4.3.2.1.2 3.2.4.3.2.2 3.2.4.3.2.2.1 3.2.4.3.2.2.2 3.2.4.3.2.2.3 3.2.4.3.2.2.4 3.2.4.3.2.3 3.2.4.3.2.4 3.2.4.3.2.4.1 3.2.4.3.2.4.2 3.2.4.3.2.5 3.2.4.3.2.5.1 3.2.4.3.2.5.2 3.2.4.3.2.6 3.2.4.3.2.7 3.2.4.3.2.8 3.2.5 3.2.5.1 3.2.5.2 3.2.5.3 3.2.6 3.2.6.1 3.2.6.2

Nominal clauses (Non-)post-modified nouns Nouns without nominal post-modification Nouns denoting entities Nouns denoting events Nouns denoting actions or movements Nouns denoting commodities used by people The verb be and its lexical equivalents Nouns with nominal post-modification Finite clauses Apposition Relative clauses Non-finite clauses For...to constructions 7o infinitives Ed forms Ing forms (Non-)finite clauses Prepositions and prepositional phrases Prepositions Prepositional phrases Adjectives and nouns Adjectives Nouns Adverbs Be clauses and lexical converses The analysis of there sentences with nominal modification There in non-finite clauses For...to constructions To infinitives Ing forms Uses of there sentences Textual use There and there-It ss sentences

3.3 3.3.1 3.3.1.1 3.3.1.2 3.3.1.2.1 3.3.1.2.2 3.3.2 3.3.3

Extrapositional it sentences Grammatical analysis Predicates in the it clause The subsequent component Finite clauses Non-finite clauses Analyses of the extr. it sentence Uses of the extr. it sentence

96 97 97 97 98 98 99 99 100 101 101 101 105 105 106 108 109 Ill Ill Ill 113 114 115 117 117 118 post120 121 121 122 123 123 123 125 127 128 129 132 132 133 134 135

IX

3.3.3.1 3.3.3.2 3.3.3.3

Extraposition and non-extraposition The principle of complementary weight Textual reference

4.0

Focussing syntagms

4.1 4.1.1 4.1.1.1 4.1.1.2 4.1.1.3 4.1.2 4.1.2.1 4.1.2.1.1 4.1.2.1.1.1 4.1.2.1.2 4.1.2.1.2.1 4.1.2.1.3 4.1.2.1.4 4.1.2.2 4.1.2.2.1 4.1.2.2.2 4.1.2.3 4.1.2.4 4.1.3 4.1.3.1 4.1.3.2 4.1.3.3 4.1.3.4 4.1.4

Focussing it sentences Grammatical analysis The complete sentence The pre-clause The post-clause Focussability of constituents Nominal groups The subject Lack of connecting word The object Indirect and prepositional objects Predicatives Attributive genitives Adverbial groups Adjuncts Subjuncts and disjuncts Multiple focussing Ascriptive foe. it sentences Analyses of foe. it sentences Formal grammar Logical semantics Functional grammar Psycholinguistics Uses of foe. it sentences

141 142 143 143 144 145 145 146 147 147 148 149 151 151 151 153 154 154 156 156 162 164 167 171

4.2 4.2.1 4.2.1.1 4.2.1.1.1 4.2.1.1.2 4.2.1.2 4.2.1.3 4.2.1.4 4.2.2 4.2.2.1 4.2.2.1.1 4.2.2.2.

Focussing wh- sentences Grammatical analysis The complete sentence Grammatical concord Tense agreement The pre-clause The be form The post-constituent Focussability of constituents Nominal groups Nominalized clauses Predicatives

175 176 176 176 178 178 180 181 181 181 182 183

X

135 137 138

141

4.2.2.3 4.2.2.4 4.2.3 4.2.4

Verbal groups Adverbial groups Analyses of the foe. wh- sentence Uses of the foe. wh- sentence

184 186 187 190

4.3 4.3.1 4.3.2

Focussing copula sentences Transposed foe. wh- sentences Generalizing nominal expressions

193 193 196

5.0

Summary

19 9

References

201

Corpus texts

211

Index

219

XI

To GUES—

you

know

1.0 Introduction

The title of this monograph, "Discourse and Grammar", indicates that we a r e concerned with the analysis and description of grammatical s t r u c tures, against the background of their use in written and spoken texts. We use language and linguistic forms for various purposes: to convey information; to develop or strengthen social contacts; to declare our individual point of view; to exert influence, and many more. Linguistic forms serve particular purposes in communication, whether spoken or written. The intentions of s p e a k e r s / writers form only one aspect of what is s a i d / written; their h e a r e r s / readers must understand these intentions, assimilate them, and, in some cases, translate them into action. When the various communicative reasons for the use of language are included in one's research, then the investigation must also take account of the partners in the discourse. This leads one to conclude that linguistic forms, grammatical structures, etc. a r e constructed in such a way that they are centred on the communicative aims of their s p e a k e r s / writers, as well as on the interpretatory needs of their h e a r e r s / readers. In consequence, when describing a grammatical structure, one must always place it in its communicative relationship to the participants in the discourse. This monograph thus belongs to the functional, or, to be more precise, discourse-functional investigations which have increasingly appeared over the last twenty years. I take discourse to be a linguistic activity, in spoken or written form, which is part of a communicative event. Its static side can be emphasized, this being the result of a communicative event which may be set down in the relevant medium, e.g. on audio tape or in a transcript, and which can be the subject of linguistic investigation. The word "discourse" can also describe the dynamic side of linguistic activity, the course of the communicative event between the participants. The emphasis on grammar and discourse in the title of this book indicates that the syntagms which are to be examined play a part in the formulation of the speakers'/ writers' intentions and a r e understood by the h e a r e r s / readers as signals in their reconstruction and interpretation of the transmitted linguistic activity. In the following, I will refer only to speakers and hearers, thus avoiding the clumsy device of always mentioning either s p e a k e r s / writers or h e a r e r s / readers. In the definition of "text", I follow Halliday and Hasan (1976: l):

1

T h e word T E X T is used in linguistics to r e f e r to any passage, spoken or w r i t t e n , of w h a t e v e r length, that does form a u n i f i e d whole. We know, as a g e n e r a l r u l e , w h e t h e r any s p e c i m e n of our own language c o n s t i t u t e s a TEXT or not."

There is a wealth of literature concerned with defining discourse and text, including Brown/ Yule (1983: chapter l), Edmondson (1981: chapter 1), H a l l i d a y / Hasan (1976: chapter l) and Widdowson (1979).

1.1

The subject-matter to be investigated

In English, there are many grammatical opportunities for introducing clause elements into a text, or for emphasizing their importance in discourse. The grammatical means available for this include certain types of element order and sentence structures. In this monograph, our attention will be principally centred on examining those syntagms in which the subject (or, to be more precise, the notional subject) appears after the finite verb. These comprise: -

inversion there sentences extrapositional it sentences focussing it sentences focussing wh- sentences

In the above-mentioned cases, the notional subject (underlined in the following examples) comes after the finite verb form. (1)

Over the bed h u n g a mosquito net.

(2)

T h e r e h a v e been many wars.

(3)

It is obvious that s h e is right.

(4)

It is h i s s i l e n c e s w h i c h a r e most

(5)

What w a s needed w a s a political

telling. breakthrough.

In this monograph, I will attempt to describe these syntagms grammatically and lexically, as well as to specify their function and use in discourse. In order to delimit the area of study and to describe the semantic and pragmatic properties of the above-mentioned syntagms, it is essential to make use of spoken and written texts. The latter have been dominant in text-based research so far, and the present work is no exception. As far as possible, authentic textual examples will be used as illustrations in the following chapters.

2

1.2

Focus(sing) and defocussing

The constructions referred to in the first section may be placed in two different functional categories, according to their grammatical structure and their rôle in texts. One group has the attribute of directing attention to particular constituents of the sentence by means of emphasis. This function will be referred to here as focussing, with the emphasized constituent being called the focus. The last two syntagms mentioned above belong to this group: focussing it and wh- sentences. The other group has the attribute of removing subjects from the centre of the interest which they usually have when they occupy the position before the finite verb. I will refer to this function as defocussing. The first three syntagms mentioned above belong to this group, i.e. sentences with inversion, as well as there and it extrapositional sentences. The terms "focussing" and "defocussing" will be explained more fully in the following two s e c tions.

1.2.1

Focus(sing)

The terms "focus" and "focussing" are used in linguistic literature to mean different things. They may, for instance, refer to the emphasizing of parts of sentences through phonological and grammatical means. Taglicht (1984: l) says: "I shall use ' f o c u s i n g ' as a g e n e r a l term for t h e a s s i g n m e n t of p r o m i n e n c e by phonological or s y n t a c t i c means."

"Phonological means" refers to the emphasizing accent which a clause element can bear. It is indicated in (6) by capital letters. "Grammatical (= syntactic) means" refers to changes in word order (topology), as in (7), and also to sentence structures, e.g. the focussing it sentence in (8). (6)

We called BOB yesterday.

(7)

Bob we called yesterday.

(8)

It was Bob we called yesterday.

Alternatively, the term is limited in its use to expression either through phonological or grammatical means. Halliday, for instance, uses the term 'focus' exclusively in the phonological sense, referring in this connection to "information focus'. Couper-Kuhlen (1986: chapters 4.2 and 7) has a thorough account of Halliday's position and closely-connected views. My use of the term 'focus' here has this differentiation: - I describe emphasis through phonology (phonological as emphasis, and the main accent with phonological as information focus.

prominence) prominence

3

We called BOB yesterday.

- Emphasis through word order (topological prominence)

I call

fronting.

Bob w e called yesterday.

- Emphasis through grammatical

prominence

I call

focus.

It w a s Bob w e called yesterday.

With focussing, it is necessary to distinguish between the linguistic means, the part in focus, and the rest of the construction. In the example sentence "It was Bob we called yesterday.", the focussing syntagm (it was...) would be the grammatical means, Bob would be the focus, and what remains of the sentence would be the rest of the construction. Of the focus constructions available in English, focussing it and wh- sentences and a few other focussing copula sentences will be discussed in this monograph. What they have in common is the fact that they use identifying be as a grammatical means for opening up a position after the finite form of the copula for the clause element which is to be focus. Focussing structures a r e grammatically more complex than the c o r r e sponding non-focussing syntagms. Prominence has been seen as the linguistic expression of general human perceptual strategies, according to which we do not perceive at any one time the totality of the component parts of an object such as a picture, but direct our attention successively to individual details, leaving the others unobserved. Linda K. Jones, for example, makes the following analogy (Jones 1977: 3): T h e h u m a n m i n d is incapable of assigning equal i m p o r t a n c e to all the data it receives f r o m its sensory sources, probably b e c a u s e it is incapable οΓ paying equal a t t e n t i o n to all t h e data at once. W h e n we look at a picture, w e never perceive all its details s i m u l t a n e o u s l y . T h e r e a r e c e r t a i n parts of t h e p i c t u r e that w e notice immediately, w h i l e the rest w e do not. Always in h u m a n perception t h e r e a r e f o r e g r o u n d and b a c k g r o u n d , f i g u r e against ground, important and n o n - i m p o r t a n t . . . "

Prominence achieved by linguistic means is known as foregrounding (/ backgrounding) or highlighting. For a possible analogy between linguistic structure and perceptual strategies see Jones (1977: chapter l) and above all Langhoff (1980).

1.2.2

Defocussing

In contrast to the constructions already mentioned, which give g r a m m a t ical prominence to parts of sentences in a syntagm introduced by it or what after identifying be, and which, as a rule, can be related to nonfocussing sentence equivalents, the three remaining possibilities - inversion, there and extrapositional it sentences - a r e positional variants of sentences of equal complexity.

4

(9)

There's

a fly in my soup.

(10) A fly is in my soup.

These two sentences are differentiated by the position of the subject. In the less usual sentence (10), a fly appears before finite be, whereas in (9), it follows it. If the nominal group (o f l y ) is removed from subject position, then, in accordance with the strict subject-predicate structure of assertive and interrogative sentences in modern English, there must be a pro forma subject. In (9), this is the pro-form there, which can be seen to function as subject from the way it behaves grammatically, e.g. in tag questions. (11) T h e r e ' s a fly in my soup, isn't

there/

*it?

I refer to this removal of a nominal group from its usual position as defocussing. A similar situation obtains with inversion. (12) In the window sits an old lady. (13) An old lady sits in the window.

If the prepositional phrase opens the sentence, the subject comes after the finite verb form. In this example, the pro-form there can also be introduced, e.g. In the window there sits an old lady. Extrapositional it sentences are a similar case. (14) It is true (thai) h e lost the key. (15) T h a t he lost the key is true.

In (14), the clause he lost the key (functioning as subject) appears after the predicator, i.e. after the finite form of be. The subject-predicator structure requires a minimal subject indicator (= it) in the vacated position. Some comments about the term "defocussing" may be helpful here. In English, the subject (in contrast to the object, for example) is marked by being in grammatical agreement with the predicator, e.g. The book/ books sells/ sell well. In German, for example, it is also marked for case (= nominative). Moreover, in English, the subject usually appears before the predicator. The placing of the subject after the predicator is connected with particular conditions, which may be collectively discussed under the heading of "inversion". There are various references in psychological literature to the fact that the speakers' interest is extremely significant with regard to the choice of subject. We have a selective perception of our surroundings and make a (partly-unconscious) decision as to what we will make the subject, according to the degree of attention the various objects command from us. Therefore, acting in accordance with an egocentric scale, we tend to make people or other life-forms into the subject, rather than inanimate objects, likewise choosing the concrete rather than the abstract, and so on. In psychological literature, this interest of speakers which affects their choice of subject is called

5

"focus", an expression taken over by representatives of form-content analysis into linguistic description. This linguistic school assumes that German has a (morphological) focus system, with the contrast of focus (nominative) and non-focus (dative, accusative). Through choosing the nominative, speakers express where their main interest lies. In English, this would relate to the contrast between focus (subject) and non-focus ((in)direct object). When subjects do not appear in front of the finite verb, they nevertheless remain the focus according to this terminology, i.e. in German, the noun is still in the nominative case, while in English, it continues to function as the subject. Placing the subject after the verb does not turn the focus into a non-focus, i.e. into a dative or an accusative object, or into a direct or indirect object. Drawing on this terminology, I will use the term "defocussing" here. The subject still functions as a subject, but it is not in its usual position in front of the finite verb. In other words, it b e c o m e s / is defocussed. For the extensive psychological literature on the speaker's choice of subject see Bock (1982: 14-18), Ertel (1977) and Zubin (1979: 474, fn 4). Form-content analysis is discussed by Garcia (1975: chapter 3). See Zubin (1979) on the focus system (in German). In the more recent linguistic literature, the distinctions I refer to in this work as "focussing" and "defocussing" are covered by different terms. Taglicht distinguishes between "cleft focus" (Taglicht 1984: chapter 4.1) and "sequential focus", where inversion and there sentences represent a subsection (Taglicht 1984: chapter 4.2). Within the framework of generative grammar, Rochemont differentiates between "cleft focus" and "constructional focus" (Rochemont 1986: chapters 4 and 5).

1.3.

Functional differences

The discussion of the functional characteristics of the syntagms mentioned in the first section necessitates the use of terms which are still the subject of dispute and are defined in different ways by those involved in this area of research. This is a situation which can lead to conceptual confusion if the terms are not sufficiently clearly established. The present work is not concerned with providing an exhaustive survey of the varied terminology currently used for functional concepts, but with defining and specifying the various concepts which have a rôle to play in the discussion presented in the following chapters. There are four functional concepts which are particularly important in this respect.

6

1.3.1

Theme ( / rheme)

The hallmarks of the Prague school are the division of the communicative structure of the sentence into two areas (theme - rheme) or into three (theme - transitional zone - rheme) and the simultaneous assumption that this is the basic order if there is no co(n)textual reason for changing it. The division of the sentence into three segments of structure - grammatical (subject - predicator - object), semantic (agent - action - patient) and communicative (theme - transitional zone - rheme) - has been a feature of the research conducted by this linguistic school since Mathesius. However, there is still no agreement about the definition of theme ( / rheme) in a sentence. Some authors try to determine the theme and rheme by means of the information value for the discourse of the various parts of the sentence. According to this theory, the theme is what is known/ given in the text, and the rheme is the unknown/ new. Others assess the theme and rheme according to the contribution of parts of the sentence to the (further) development of a discourse. If the contribution is slight, then the relevant part of the sentence is described as the theme, and if it is considerable, it is called the rheme. Grammatical, lexical and contextual factors work together here to allow the contribution of a part of a sentence towards the development of the discourse to be established. A different functional definition of theme ( / rheme) is to be found in the works of Halliday (1985: 36), who has the following interpretation: "The T h e m e is a f u n c t i o n in Ihe CLAUSE AS A MESSAGE. It is w h a t the message is c o n c e r n e d with; t h e point οΓ d e p a r t u r e Tor w h a t the s p e a k e r is going to say."

For Halliday, the theme is obviously the starting point that a speaker chooses for his message. In English, the theme introduces the sentence: "As a g e n e r a l guide, the T h e m e can be identified as that e l e m e n t w h i c h c o m e s in f i r s t position in the clause." (Halliday 1985: 39).

In the following examples, the underlined parts of the sentence are theme. (16) T h e d u k e h a s given my a u n t that teapot. (17) T h a t teapot the d u k e has given to my a u n t . (18) Very c a r e f u l l y s h e put him back on his f e e t again.

The schools of thought commented on above relate the term to the sentence. To make the concept clearer, one could speak of sentence theme. The concept of "theme" is also applied to the text. For example, Jones (1977: V) says: T h e ideas about t h e m e developed in i n t u i t i v e u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e m e that school - that is, that t h e m e is "main is its "central thread". T h e m e also may of a text: a s t a t e m e n t broad e n o u g h

this study have their roots in the r a t h e r most of u s had in primary and secondary idea" in a text. T h e t h e m e - l i n e of a text be desribed as a " m i n i m u m g e n e r a l i z a t i o n " to r e p r e s e n t t h e e n t i r e text, yet s p e c i f i c

7

e n o u g h to r e p r e s e n t its uniqueness."

Jones uses the term "theme" in the sense of a textual theme - i.e. what the text is concerned with or what the text is about. However, in the following chapters, I will use "theme" only in the sense of sentence theme. T h e literature on theme ( / rheme) is extensive and diverse. Two works by Firbas summarizing the Prague school theories are recommended - Firbas (1974, 1983). A wide-ranging discussion of Prague school linguists can be found in Jones (1977: chapter 3). Halliday has developed his ideas on this topic in a number of publications, e.g. Halliday (1967, 1985: chapter 3). For theme as textual theme see for example Jones (1977: chapter l) and Brown/ Yule (1983: chapter 4).

1.3.2.

Topic

One distinction competing with the t h e m e / rheme structure of sentences is that found in topic and comment, which can be defined as follows (Hockett 1958: 201): "... t h e s p e a k e r a n n o u n c e s a topic and then says s o m e t h i n g about it... In English and the f a m i l i a r languages of Europe, topics a r e usually also subjects and comm e n t s a r e predicates."

Topic (as characterized by Hockett) has a strong correlation with the grammatical concept of subject, but is not always identical to it. In the more recent literature, especially in the sphere of generative grammar, the term "topic" is often used to describe the fronting of constituents. Thus, the underlined parts of the following example sentences should be regarded as topic (cf. Creider 1979: 4). (19) Apples he never

liked.

(20) Tasty that c a k e was.

In the following chapters, "topic" will be understood to be a narrative, rather than a grammatical notion - topic in the sense of the subject-matter of a conversation, or what a discourse is about. What the theme (in Hockett's informal understanding of the term) or subject-matter of a conversation is can usually be determined from the interplay of speaker and hearer. It is not always something fully formulated and grammatically marked, but rather something which can be inferred from the conversation or when reading. For this reason, it has rightly been pointed out that it is not sentences or texts that have topics, but s p e a k e r s / writers or h e a r e r s / readers. It is they who have to reach agreement about the subj e c t - m a t t e r of a text, negotiate it, or allow the search for it to lead them to different conclusions.

8

The literature on topic (/ comment) suffers from the confusion of grammatical ("the first constituent in the sentence") with narrative ("what a text is about") features. I follow Allan (1986: chapters 7.5 and 7.9), Brown/ Yule (1983: chapter 3), Gundel (1974) and Reinhart (1982) in regarding the topic to be the subject-matter of a discourse.

1.3.3

Information: given/ new

Another functional distinction is that of the informational value of constituents. Clause elements are parts of sentences, and sentences in their turn form parts of a text. In discourse, the individual utterance contributes to the development of the conversation as a whole, and is understood against the background of the current (non-)linguistic knowledge of the discourse partners. Using this background knowledge, the information conveyed by the sentence constituents is divided into given/ old and new. The literature contains various methods of ascertaining what should be regarded as given or new in a sentence. "Given" is often perceived as what has already been mentioned in the text. Assistance with this may be given by certain linguistic forms such as determiners. In the second of the two example sentences which follow, a signal is given that "the three men" have already been mentioned, whereas the first sentence could appear at the beginning of a story or paragraph where people not yet mentioned are introduced. (21) T h r e e m e n boarded the plane. (22) T h e t h r e e m e n boarded t h e plane.

Whether something is known or not is often dependent on the way it is embedded in a situation, or results from our knowledge of objects or processes in the world. The exclamation below refers to pictures which are known because they are obvious features of the conversational situation, whilst the item "brake" in the second example is known as a result of our world knowledge about cars, which includes the fact that a car has a brake. (23) Look at these b e a u t i f u l pictures! (24) We bought a car. T h e b r a k e does not w o r k .

Judging from the above examples, "given" refers to the co- or contextual, linguistic or non-linguistic givenness of an object, whilst "new" means its non-derivability from the text, the situation or our knowledge. This definition includes the interpretatory rôle of the hearer, but not the c o r responding part played by the speaker when establishing what is "given" and what is "new". In the end, it is speakers who decide what to mark as given and new for the listener, on the basis of their estimation of

9

the way the discourse is developing. Halliday formulates it as follows (Halliday 1985: 277): T h e s i g n i f i c a n t variable is: i n f o r m a t i o n that is presented by the s p e a k e r as recoverable (Given) or not recoverable (New) to the listener. What is treated as recoverable may be so because it has been m e n t i o n e d before; but that is not the only possibility. It may be something that is in the situation, like I and you-, or in the air. so to speak; or something that is not a r o u n d at all but that the s p e a k e r w a n t s to present as Given for r h e t o r i c a l purposes. T h e m e a n i n g is: this is not news. Likewise, w h a t is treated as n o n - r e c o v e r a b l e may be s o m e t h i n g that h a s not been m e n t i o n e d ; but it may be s o m e t h i n g unexpected, w h e t h e r previously m e n t i o n e d or not. T h e m e a n i n g is: attend to this; this is news."

"Given", therefore, is what speakers regard as information obtainable by the hearer; "new" is information that they regard as non-recoverable by the hearer. There is wide-spread agreement that there is a kind of fundamental order for the distribution of information in the English assertive sentence. When co(n)textual reasons do not dictate otherwise, the known/ given/ old information precedes the new. The given tends to appear at the beginning of the sentence, with the new usually coming at the end. This distribution is explained by the fact that utterances can then be processed more easily. The procedure used by speakers to process incoming information involves first identifying what is known, and then using this as the basis for the understanding of new information. The given/ new sequence facilitates this processing strategy (cf. C l a r k / Haviland (1977)). The determining of what is given/ new has been achieved independently of the linguistic form of the two informational values. Halliday links the distinction to a prosodie realization. He believes that the primary accent of a sentence always lies on a constituent with the informational status of New. In the unmarked case, this applies to the last lexical item in the sentence, and when it is marked, the primary stress lies on another constituent. In the first of the two examples below, the main accent is on blame (= unmarked), whereas in the second it is on you (= marked). (25) You w e r e to blame. (26) You w e r e to blame.

The literature is extensive and, at times, contradictory; important works are Brown/ Yule (1983: chapter 5), Chafe (1976), Halliday (1967, 1985: chapter 8) and Prince (1981a).

1.3.4

Constituent weight

Besides the functional distinctions already mentioned, there is another principle which applies to the way texts are constructed and understood:

10

the weight of t h e constituents t e x t u a l organization and our of a constituent is taken to s t a n c e , a nominal group may in the following e x a m p l e s ) .

and their sequence in the s e n t e n c e influence processing s t r a t e g i e s as h e a r e r s . T h e weight mean the size of a c l a u s e e l e m e n t . For inconsist of only a single l e x e m e (underlined

(27) Sugar dissolves in water. (28) Bert went to the zoo. (29) T h i s is correct.

Nominal groups may also be composed of a head with p r e - a n d / or p o s t modification. (30) T h e silent majority will decide. (31) Guests w h o pay a r e w e l c o m e . (32) We can only give you a c r u d e e s t i m a t e of t h e cost.

At one e x t r e m e , t h e r e a r e constituents composed of one l e x e m e , and at the o t h e r , t h e r e a r e c l a u s e e l e m e n t s which, according to t h e number of their p r e - a n d / or p o s t - m o d i f i e r s , a r e not, in principle at l e a s t , subject to any finite size limit. T h e s e endpoints of the s c a l e a r e c a l l e d light and heavy. Another set of t e r m s is based on length, with the division of constituents into short and long. C l a u s e e l e m e n t s can t h e r e f o r e b e either l i g h t / short or h e a v y / long, or can b e a r r a n g e d on a sliding s c a l e b e t w e e n the two poles. A range of f a c t o r s (which will b e discussed b e l o w ) i n f l u e n c e the sequence of light and heavy constituents in the s e n t e n c e . As h e a r e r s , we find it easier to process u t t e r a n c e s which a l t e r n a t e b e tween light and heavy components. Weight of constituents as a f a c t o r has long been known. As e a r l y as 1909, the G e r m a n i s t O t t o Behaghel included in his essay on the size and sequence of c l a u s e e l e m e n t s ( " B e ziehungen zwischen U m f a n g und Reihenfolge von S a t z g l i e d e r n " ) a mention of a " l a w of increasing constituent size" ( " G e s e t z der w a c h s e n d e n G l i e der"), which he c h a r a c t e r i z e d as follows: "... t h e r e is a tendency not only to choose the later position Tor the longer expression, but also to f o r m a longer expression for the later position. In this way, l a n g u a g e s unconsciously develop a p a r t i c u l a r r h y t h m i c feel, a t e n d e n c y to move f r o m the s h o r t e r to the longer constituent; t h u s evolves w h a t I wish to call (in order to have a c o n v e n i e n t expression for it) ' t h e law of i n c r e a s i n g c o n s t i t u e n t size'." (Behaghel 1909: 139)

T h e principle of s e n t e n c e rhythm has been taken up again in the r e c e n t l i t e r a t u r e of p r a g m a t i c s and also in psycholinguistics. See, for instance, A l l a n (1986: c h a p t e r 7.4), Bock (1982: 18 f), H a r t v i g s o n / Jakobsen (1974: c h a p t e r 4.1) and L e e c h (1983: chapter 3.3.3).

11

2.0 The English sentence

To prepare the way for the terminology involved in the grammatical analyses of this chapter, it is perhaps necessary to give a brief review here of the range of sentences in English. These are either simple or multiple. Simple sentences are those which contain a syntagm whose components are not in themselves clauses. (1)

Joan can be nasty.

(2)

The prices went up again.

(3)

Our learn lost the game.

(4)

Last night, he gave me three letters.

Sentences like (5) and (6), on the other hand, are seen as multiple, b e cause the object or adverbial is itself composed of a clause. (5)

Nobody knows what will happen next.

(6)

Don left, although I had asked him to stay.

If clauses appear as post-modifiers of sentence components, then these sentences are evaluated as simple. (7)

The family that prays together stays together.

(8)

I remember the time when he was young.

The simple sentence in English consists of three groups (or nominal, verbal and adverbial. (9)

The prices

went up

nominal group

verbal group

phrases):

again. adverbial group

They express different grammatical functions: the nominal group has the function of subject; indirect, direct and prepositional object; the verbal group functions as predicator; and the adverbial group functions as adverbial. (10) LasI night adverbial (11) He

he

gave

subject predicator convinced

me

subject predicator direct object

me

three

letters.

indirect direct object object of his

innocence.

prepositional object

13

The multiple sentence is either compound or complex. In the former case, two or more clauses are co-ordinated to produce a sentence on a single level. In the latter, two or more clauses are arranged in such a way that one is subordinated to another, forming a sentence on two or more levels. (12) illustrates co-ordination, and (13) subordination. (12) D a n a sent m e some money, and we had a good time. (13) If you agree, the row will be over.

There are three types of clause in English: declarative, interrogative and imperative. This division rests on criteria of a grammatical nature. If a clause has a subject which agrees with the predicator, then it is either a declarative or an interrogative clause. If there is no subject in the clause which agrees with the predicator, then this is an imperative clause. Declarative clauses differ grammatically from interrogative clauses in that the subject precedes the predicator in the former, while in the latter, the subject (with the exception of the subject question) follows the predicator. (14) Everyone will be happy, (declarative) (15) W h e r e a r e the horses? (interrogative) (16) Give m e a hand! (imperative)

This grammatical classification of clauses into three types is quite distinct from what a clause expresses. Declarative clauses can be interpreted as commands, e.g. There's a draught, interrogative clauses as requests, e.g. Could you help me?, and imperative clauses as wishes, e.g. Have a nice day! The way a sentence is understood is only partly determined by its grammatical structure. For a comprehensive discussion of the English sentence and clause types, see various chapters in Quirk et al. (1985).

2.1 The nominal group The nominal group consists of an obligatory nominal head and two s a t e l lites which either precede or follow the head, and which are both optional. The nominal head may take the form of a common noun or a proper noun, which are underlined in the following examples. (17) A big dog chased our cat. (18) My f r i e n d does not like meat. (19) Susan visited Arundel Castle last year. (20) Everyone w a s happy.

For the further discussion, it may be helpful to list the different classes of pronouns here:

14

1. Personal pronouns, e.g. 1/ me, she/ 2. Possessive pronouns, e.g. mine,

her etc.;

his etc.;

3. Reflexive pronouns, e.g. myself,

ourselves·,

4. Reciprocal pronouns, e.g. each other, one

another·,

5. Relative pronouns, e.g. wh- forms, that·, 6. Interrogative pronouns, e.g. wh- forms; 7. Demonstrative pronouns, e.g. this (these)/

that

(those);

8. Indefinite pronouns, e.g. all, both, each, everyone; one, some(one), many, (a) little, several, enough, another, anything; neither, none, nobody. Standard grammars such as Quirk et al. (1985: chapter 6) provide further information on the individual groups. The subject matter of the present work makes it unnecessary to go into further detail about common and proper nouns. The satellites of the head-word will be described below as nominal modifiers, and distinguished as nominal pre- or post-modifiers according to their position. The nominal group can thus be either simple, i.e. comprising only a noun or a pronoun, or extended, i.e. the nominal head is p r e - and/ or post-modified. Fig. (21) nominal group

pre-modifier(s)

j

head

|

post-modifier(s)

simple extended

2.1.1

Nominal pre-modification

To simplify matters, nominal pre-modification can be divided into three syntagms: determinative, adjectival and nominal qualifiers. (22) Basil

lost h j s e x p e n s i v e C a r t i e r

watch.

(23) T h e c h i l d r e n r e m e m b e r e d a l i t h e o t h e r b e a u t i f u l a n i m a l b o o k s .

The pre-modification of the nominal groups underlined in (22) and (23) consists of determiners (his; all, the, other), adjectives (expensive; beautiful) and nouns (Cartier; animal). The last two need no further explanation within the thematic framework of this monograph, but the determiners do require further subdivision and explanation. Based on their sequential ordering, three groups can be distinguished: one group which forms the

15

core of the determiner, and two others which function as p r e - or postdeterminers, according to whether they come before or after it. (24) T h e judge rejected the evidence. (25) T h e judge rejected a great deal of the evidence. (26 ) T h e judge rejected a great deal of t h e additional evidence.

The sequence of determiners in these examples illustrates the three classes. The definite article the is the focal point of the determiner syntagm, around which the p r e - (partitives a great deal o f ) and postmodifiers (additional) are grouped. The pre-determiners comprise: 1. quantifying all (my) sons, both {his) brothers,

half

the

plums·,

2. expressions describing a multiple of a quantity: twice the e f f o r t , three times the size (of mine); 3. exclamatory formulae like such

a nice party,

what a mess;

4. partitive constructions like plenty of books, lots of rain, deal of trouble, a good number of complaints.

a great

There is a lack of consensus in the literature about the analysis of partitive constructions. I follow Sinclair (1972: 156 ff), in regarding them as pre-determiners (pre-deictics in his terminology). The determiners at the core of the syntagm consist of: 1. the articles the, a(n) and zero (0); 2. the demonstratives this (these)/ 3. the possessives my, your,

that (