Chinese Linguistics PDF

5 Topic and Focus SHU-ING SHYU 1 Introduction Topic and focus are notions related to how information is encoded in grammar. A sentence usually provides new information as the focus, either some part of it or the whole sentence; it may also contain information given in the disco...

5 Topic and Focus SHU-ING SHYU 1 Introduction Topic and focus are notions related to how information is encoded in grammar. A sentence usually provides new information as the focus, either some part of it or the whole sentence; it may also contain information given in the discourse, known as the topic. This chapter concerns how topic and focus are expressed in various syntactic structures. Chinese is widely known as a topic-prominent language, which makes extensive use of topic-comment structures. Varying word order becomes the most common means to structure the discourse information. In addition, there is a range of ways to encode focus, such as via the use of certain morpheme shi “be,” and lian... dou/ye “including... all/also,” and through association with certain positions in a clause. However, it is generally not expressed via prosody. The chapter considers various approaches to the analysis of topics in Section 2, and then presents focus structures in Section 3. Objects at the clausal left-periphery and VP-periphery are presented in Section 4, followed by a summary in Section 5. 2 Topic As one of the most extensively researched topics in Chinese grammar, the study of topics mainly concerns the following issues: (i) how a topic is defined (Li and Thompson 1976, 1981; Tsao 1979, 1990; Shi 2000), (ii) whether a topic has its inde- pendent grammatical status and can co-exist with a subject in the same clause (Li and Thompson 1976, 1981; Tsao 1979, 1990; Huang 1982; Li 1990; Jiang 1991; Ning 1993; Shyu 1995; Shi 2000; Huang et al. 2009) or whether a topic is merely a dis- course notion (LaPolla 1993), and (iii) how a topic is syntactically represented The Handbook of Chinese Linguistics, First Edition. Edited by C.-T. James Huang, Y.-H. Audrey Li, and Andrew Simpson. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.  Topic and Focus 101 (Huang et al. 2009): via movement (Huang 1982) or base-generation (Xu and Langendoen 1985; C.-R. Huang 1991). It has been widely noticed that there is an “aboutness” relationship between the topic and the comment, for example Chao (1968: 70), and Y. Huang (1994: 162), in the sense that the topics neixie shumu in (1a) and Zhangsan in (2b) are something about which the remaining clause – comment – talks. In their influential work on Chinese topic, Li and Thompson (1976; 1981) have characterized topics as a gram- matical entity, possibly distinguished from the grammatical subject (vs. Chao 1968). The semantic characterization is that topics “set a framework in naming what the sentence is about, and they must be either definite [(1a), (2b)] or generic [(1b)]” (Li and Thompson 1981: 86). (1) a. Neixie shumu shushen da. those tree trunk big “Those trees, (their) trunks are big.” b. Daxiang, bi-zi hen chang elephant trunk very long “Elephants, trunks are very long.” (2) a. Wo yijing jian-guo Zhangsan le. I already see-Exp Zhangsan SFP “I have already seen Zhangsan.” b. Zhangsan wo yijing jian-guo __ le. Zhangsan I already see Exp SFP “Zhangsan, I’ve already seen (him).” Li and Thompson’s “framework-setting” function of topics is aligned with Chafe’s (1976): a topic “sets a spatial, temporal, or individual framework within which the main predication holds” (1976: 50). This definition seems to better characterize the function of the topic since the comment part in (1a) is not about neixie shumu “those trees,” but rather their trunks (Chafe 1976). In discourse, a topic functions to “relate the material in the sentence of which it is a part to some preceding sentence” (Li and Thompson 1981: 100). It may be a previously mentioned element as in (3b), and convey given information about which the speaker assumes the hearer has “some knowledge” (p. 15). (3) a: Wo zai Xingguo xuexiao jiaoshu. I at Xingguo school teach “I teach at Xinguo School.” b: Ou! Xingguo xuexiao, nar you yi-wei Zhang xiansheng ni Oh! Xingguo school there exist one-ClZhang Mr. you renshi ma? know Q “Oh! Xinguo School, do you know a Mr. Zhang there?” 102 Syntax, Semantics, and Morphology Syntactically, topics are optionally separated from the rest of the sentence by a pause particle, such as a (ya), ne, me, and ba; (Li and Thompson 1976, 1981; Tsao 1979, 1990, etc.). They usually occur in a clause-initial position and can be in other categories like time/locative phrases, or verb (phrases), Li and Thompson (ch. 4). There are three types of topics in Li and Thompson: (i) the first phrase in the so-called double-“subject” sentences as in (1), (ii) the “gapped topic” that has an associated gap in the comment as in (2b), (iii) the “gapless” or “dangling” topic that does not have an associated gap in the comment such as the first DP in (3b) and (4). (4) Neichang huo, xingkui xiaofangdui lai de kuai. that-Cl fire, fortunately firefighter team come-DE-fast, “As for that fire, fortunately the fire brigade came quickly.” (Chao 1968; Li and Thompson 1981: 96) 2.1 Grammatical topic vs. dangling topic Despite the above well-known functional characterizations, Shi (2000) notes that the pause markers mentioned above are interjection markers and they cannot be the formal topic markers, because they can also appear in other phrase bounda- ries. Without recourse to the vague functional definitions, he proposes the follow- ing grammatical functions of the topic. (5) A TOPIC is an unmarked NP (or its equivalent) that precedes a clause and is related to a position inside the clause; a topic represents an entity that has been mentioned in the previous discourse and is being discussed again in the current sentence, namely, topic is what the current sentence is set up to add new information to. The clause related to the topic in such a way is the comment. (Shi 2000: 386) He further states that a predication relation (e.g., Williams 1980, cf. Shyu’s (1995) adaptation of Kuroda’s (1992) categorical judgment Predication) is held between the topic and the comment, the latter of which is an open clause and contains a gap or a resumptive pronoun (RP) “coreferential with the topic” (Shi 2000: 388). The gap position is crucial for his grammatical definition to the extent that it is set out to distinguish “gapped” topics from the “gapless” dangling ones (DT). Against the DT analysis for the clause-initial DPs from (6) through (9), Shi treats them as the grammatical subject for the following reasons: (i) the lack of a cor- responding gap position inside the comment and (ii) the comment functioning as the main predicate, syntactically predicated with the subject. (6) Tamen da-yu chi xiao-yu. (Shi 2000: 389) they big-fish eat small-fish “They act according to the law of the jungle.”  Topic and Focus 103 (7) Tamen shei dou bu lai. (Teng 1974) they who all not come “They, none of them are coming.” (8) Na-zhong douzi yi-jin san-shi-kuan qian. (Li and Thompson 1976) that-Cl bean one-catty three-ten-Cl money “That kind of beans, one catty is thirty dollars.” (9) Wu-jia Niuyue zui gui. (Chen 1996) thing-price New York most expensive “Speaking of the price of things, New York is the most expensive.” As for (4) and (10), which have often been grouped as gapless DTs, Shi (2000: 393) grants them the status of grammatical topics because they are related to a gap in the comment. Neichang huo in (4) either is related to the subject gap as in (4’), or functions as a temporal topic, at the time of that fire. Similarly, the DP topic in (10), as a PP with its P missing, is related to a position inside the comment. (4’)... buran jiu __ hui shao-si bu-shao ren. otherwise really will burn-die not-few people “... otherwise (it) would have killed many people.” (10) (Wei) zhejian shiqing ni bu neng guang __ mafan yige ren. for this-Cl matter you not can only bother one-Cl man “For this matter, you cannot just bother one person.” In short, as Shi’s definition of the topic crucially hinges on a gap in the comment, it is instrumental in clarifying various notions of topics and zooming in on the debates of the movement and base-generation derivations. 2.2 Movement and base-generation The main issue regarding the syntactic properties of grammatical (gapped) topics concerns how topics are derived: by movement or base-generation. As first noted in Huang (1982), moved topics are sensitive to the complex DP island as in (11), and are constrained by the Condition on Extraction Domain (CED) including improper extraction from the possessor subject (12), and an adjunct clause (13). An empty trace in these islands results in ungrammaticality. Huang et al. discuss the option of a base-generation structure, illustrated by the resumption strategy that salvages movement violations in (11–13). (11) Lisii, wo renshi [henduo [[*ei/ta xihuan de] ren]. Lisi I know many he like DE person “Lisii, I know many people who ei/hei likes.” 104 Syntax, Semantics, and Morphology (12) Zhangsani, wo kanjian-le [*ei/ta baba]. Zhangsan I see-Asp father “Zhangsani, I saw *ei/hisi father.” (13) *Lisii, zhe-jian shi [gen *ei/ta mei lai] mei you guanxi. Lisi this-Cl matter with /he not come not have relation “Lisii, this matter is not related to *ei/hisi not having come.” Movement is evident in (14), in which the temporal/ PP topic is ambiguously construed either in the matrix or embedded clause. However, they cannot be interpreted as if they are inside the island of (15). The resumptive strategy is not available to PPs (Li 1990: 197). (14) Zuotian/Zai xuexiao, wo __ kandao yixie xuesheng __ yesterday/at school I see some students shou-le shang. get Asp wound “Yesterday/At school, I know some students were wounded.” (15) Zuotian/Zai xuexiao, wo kandao yixie [[shou-le shang de] yesterday/at school I see some get-Asp wound DE xuesheng]. student “Yesterday/At school, I saw some students who were wounded.” Deriving topic structures by movement is further supported by some reconstruc- tion effects (Huang et al. 2009: ch 6). The reflexive in (16a) and the R-expression topics in (16b) are interpreted in their base positions and the (un)acceptability of these sentences follows from the Binding Principles. (16) a. [Zijij-de shu]j, Zhangsani bu xiang kan ej. Self’s book Zhangsan not want read “Hisj own book, Zhangsanj does not want to read.” b. *Zhangsani, tai shuo Lisi bu renshi ei Zhangsan he say Lisi not know “Zhangsani, hei said that Lisi does not know (himi).” A complication arises concerning the subject-object asymmetry of the extracted domains. When the island occurs in a (pre-)subject position (11’–13’), island viola- tions of their respective counterpart (11–13) become possible. (11’) Lisii, [[ei xihuan de] ren] hen duo. Lisi like DE person very many “Lisii, people who [hei] likes are many.”  Topic and Focus 105 (12’) Zhangsani, [ei baba] hen you-qian. Zhangsan father very rich “Zhangsani, [hisi] father is rich.” (13’) Lisii, [yingwei ei piping-le Zhangsan],... Lisi, because criticize-Asp Zhangsan “(As for) Lisii, because [hei] criticized Zhangsan...” On account of Huang’s (1984) Generalized Control Rule (GCR), Huang et al. explain that (11’–13’) actually involve an e (base-generated empty RP, or pro) that is co-indexed with the closest nominal, the base-generated topic in the A’-position, hence irrelevant to the island conditions. (17) The Generalized Control Rule (GCR): An empty pronoun is co-indexed with the closest nominal. Nevertheless, another problem arises as to why an object within a subject island as in (18) is also extractable, apparently in violation of GCR, with an intervening antecedent. (18) a. Zhe-ge xiaohaii, [[Lisi zhaogu ei] zui heshi. this-Cl child Lisi care most appropriate “This childi, that Lisi takes care of [himi] is most appropriate.” b. Zhangsani, [[ej piping ei de renj] hen duo. Zhangsan criticize DE person very many “Zhangsani, people who criticize [himi] are many.” Huang suggests that the object is first topicalized to a peripheral position within the embedded clause, leaving a trace and creating a pro; then the pro is co-indexed with the topic, subject to the GCR, as schematized in (19). (19) Topici, [Clause [Subject proi … ti ] …] GCR Move Huang et al. conclude that island conditions are relevant to topic structures, either derived by base-generation or movement. The apparent island violation cases actually involve a pro, which is identified with a topic conditioned by the GCR. However, the remaining question is: What position is a legitimate peripheral position for the pro created by movement? If a pro can be created as that in (19) to mitigate island violations, what bars the creation of a pro that would otherwise result in real island violations? I refer readers to Li’s (2007) different account for some unexpected data. Despite the complication of interpreting the e (trace or 106 Syntax, Semantics, and Morphology pro), the properties of islandhood and reconstruction are nevertheless useful for diagnosing movement not only in topicalization but also in other A’-movements discussed in Huang et al. (2009). 2.3 Hanging topics and left dislocated topics? In the wake of the cartography approach of splitting Comp (Rizzi 1997, etc.), cartographic structures for Chinese topics have been proposed by Badan and del Gobbo (2010) and Paul (2005), as in (20). (20) ForceP > TopicP* > (lian-) Focus > IP The Topic field is further decomposed by Badan and del Gobbo (2010) into three hierarchical sub-layers: the Aboutness (“whole-part” or “possessive”) Topic like (1), and the thematicized Hanging Topic (HT) and Left Dislocation (LD) Topic. (21) Aboutness Topic > HT > LD > lian-Focus > IP Badan and del Gobbo (2010) propose that a HT in Chinese as in (22) is linked to an RP, but an LD topic in (23) is linked to a trace. An LD topic, but not an HT, can be a PP. Multiple LDs are possible, but not multiple HTs; see (24) vs. (25). (22) a. Zhangsani, wo kanjian tai le. Zhangsan I saw him Perf “Zhangsani, I saw himi.” b. Zhangsani, wo gei nage shazii ji le yi fen xin. Zhangsan I to that-Cl imbecile send Perf one Cl letter “Zhangsan, I sent a letter to that imbecile.” (23) a. Zhangsani, wo kanjian ti le. = (2b) b. Gei Zhangsani, wo *(gei tai/nage shazii) ji le To Zhangsan I to him/that-Cl imbecile send Perf yi fen xin. one Cl letter “To Zhangsan, I sent a letter.” (24) *Zhejia yinhangi, Zhangsanj wo zhidao women keyi cong This-Cl bank Zhangsan I know we can from nalii ti/wei taj jiedao hen duo qian. there for him borrow very much Money “This bank, Zhangsan, I think we can borrow money from it for him.”  Topic and Focus 107 (25) Cong zhejia yinhangi, ti/wei Zhangsanj... From this-Cl bank for Zhangsan “From this bank, for Zhangsan, I think we can borrow money.” The issue at stake is whether Badan and del Gobbo’s (2010) hierarchical distinc- tions for Chinese can be readily made similarly to those in Italian discussed in Benincà and Poletto (2004). Without providing semantic distinction of these two topic types, Badan and del Gobbo’s (2010) observation amounts to saying that (i) a thematic DP topic, but not a thematic PP topic, can have a related RP; (ii) mul- tiple PP-topicalization (their HT) is possible, but not multiple DP-topicalization (their LD). Point (i) is due to the lack of PP resumption; see Section 2.1. Note that Badan and del Gobbo (2010) assume that Italian Scene Setting (e.g., temporal/ location) adverbs are distinguished from the HT and LD thematicized topics, and are projected between them. But they treat Mandarin PPs in (25) as thematicized LDs. It thus remains unclear whether the PPs are thematic arguments of the verb or Scene Setting PPs, and how they can be distinguished from the PPs as in (14), which usually are subsumed under the topic category. As for point (ii), it is sug- gested that the unacceptability of multiple DP-topicalization be ascribed to a general prohibition against moving multiple DP arguments, presumably for mini- mality or discourse reasons irrelevant to their HT labeling. Further research is needed to verify their comparison of Chinese topics with Italian counterparts. 3 Focus and focus constructions Cross-linguistically, it has been generally observed that “Information focus” (InF) and “identificational focus” (IdF) are manifested differently in syntax (Kiss 1998). They exhibit different prosodic patterns (Bolinger 1965; Jackendoff 1972; Selkirk 1984; Büring 2003; Reinhart 2006, etc.), which may affect word order (Zubizarreta 1998). However, a fundamental question in Chinese is whether foci can be readily distinguished phonetically/phonologically. Though attempts have been made by Xu (2004) and Feng (2003),1 the use of prosody and stress to signal focus or dis- tinguish focus types in Mandarin Chinese is quite limited and different from languages such as English with a clear nuclear stress rule. Xu (2004) himself even acknowledges that Chinese “uses more syntax and less phonology in focus reali- zation” (p. 277), and focus can be rendered without even requiring phonological manifestation. Shyu (2010) empirically demonstrates that contrastive stress itself does not contribute to disambiguating focus interpretations.2 Consequently, it remains unclear whether word order variations are constrained by a nuclear stress rule (if any) or by the semantic/pragmatic information structure of placing new information in the S-final position preceded by old information (LaPolla 1995; Zhang and Fang 1996). Because of the lack of systematic phonetic/phonological studies, this chapter will not discuss these issues further. Instead it will concen- trate on two focus constructions: shi... de “be... particle DE” clefts, and lian... dou/ye “including... all/also, even” constructions.