Diese Arbeit beschäftigt sich mit einem Aspekt der englischen Syntax, nämlich dem „Preposing“, also dem Voranstellen von bestimmten Konstituenten. Die übliche Satzstellung des Englischen ist SVO (Subjekt, Verb, Objekt). Bsp: “I ordered coffee.“ Um ein Element des Satzes besonders zu betonen kann man dieses aber auch voranstellen. “COFFEE I ordered.” Hierbei spricht man von „Topicalization“ oder „Focus Preposing“. Eugenia Casielles-Suárez schildert dieses Thema in ihrem Text “Focus Preposing (it is called)” aus dem Jahr 1998, der auch dieser Arbeit zugrunde liegt. In der Linguistik wird im Satz unterschieden zwischen Topik (das Thema eines Satzes) und Fokus (das, was über das Thema ausgesagt wird). In dieser Arbeit wird diskutiert, ob das vorangestellte Element gleichzeitig Fokus und Topik des Satzes ist und wie dies sein kann. Dabei werden zunächst die verschiedenen Analysemöglichkeiten von Casielles- Suárez beschrieben und anschließend die beiden Konstruktionen „Focus Preposing“ und „Topicalization“ nach Birner and Ward 2006 verglichen.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Focus Preposing as a Topical Focus
2.1 The Reconstruction Analysis
2.2 The Interaction of Two Dichotomies
3. Focus Preposing and Topicalization
4. Conclusion
5. References
Objectives and Topics
This paper examines whether the preposed element in "Focus Preposing" constructions functions as a topical element in addition to being the focus of the utterance. By evaluating linguistic theories from Casielles-Suárez, Vallduví, and Birner & Ward, the research investigates the relationship between focus, topicality, and discourse entities to clarify if a "topical focus" is a valid theoretical construct.
- Analysis of Focus Preposing versus Topicalization mechanisms.
- Evaluation of the Reconstruction Analysis and its application to discourse.
- Critique of the "Interaction of Two Dichotomies" as an explanation for topical focus.
- Comparative analysis of focus placement in preposing constructions.
- Defining the role of Backward Looking Centers (BLC) in syntactic structures.
Excerpt from the Book
3. Focus Preposing and Topicalization
Birner and Ward (2006) also talk about preposing constructions. They distinguish between the two types Focus Preposing and Topicalization and show how they differ and in how far they are similar.
The preposed element in a Focus Preposing construction “contains the focus of the utterance and receives nuclear accent”15. They give the following example: (5) Yeah we did it. Two or three times we did it. The constituent ‘two or three times’ is the focus of the utterance and “stands in a salient set relationship with the previous utterance”16. In the previous discourse the speaker says that they had ‘done it’ meaning that they had done something some numbers of time. The next utterance and thus the preposed constituent ‘two or three times’ refers to this concept of doing something some numbers of time. This can also be pointed up by the Open Proposition (OP) which clarifies the reference to the previous utterance. The OP in this case is ‘We did it X times’.
Topicalization differs from Focus Preposing in that the preposed element “does not contain the focus but it does bear one or more pitch accents”17. The focus occurs somewhere else in the sentence as can be seen in example (6): (6) [A and B are discussing which film to see] A: Ok, our choices are “Star Struck” playing on Samson Street and “The Return of Martin Guerre” playing at the Ritz. B: I vote for “Star Struck”. The OTHER one you have to go all the way down to Second and WALNUT to see.18 The preposed element ‘the other one’ is not the focus of the sentence, but ‘all the way down to Second and Walnut’. However the preposed element does also stand in a set relationship with the previous utterance. ‘The other one’ is a member of the set of ‘movies’ that was brought to mind by the utterance of speaker A. The OP “You have to go to X location to see {movies}”19 clarifies again the relation to the previous discourse.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Defines preposing constructions and outlines the primary research question regarding whether the preposed element in Focus Preposing is inherently topical.
2. Focus Preposing as a Topical Focus: Critically evaluates existing analytical approaches, specifically the Reconstruction Analysis and the interaction of two dichotomies, to see if they support the existence of a "topical focus".
3. Focus Preposing and Topicalization: Compares the two construction types based on Birner and Ward (2006) to highlight differences in focus placement and discourse relationship.
4. Conclusion: Synthesizes the findings, concluding that the preposed element in Focus Preposing is not definitively topical and that the initial assumptions are largely unsupported.
5. References: Provides the bibliographic documentation of the linguistic sources utilized in the study.
Keywords
Focus Preposing, Topicalization, Topical Focus, Information Structure, Backward Looking Center, Reconstruction Analysis, Linguistic Dichotomy, Syntax, Discourse Entities, Nuclear Accent, Open Proposition, Preposing Constructions, Birner and Ward, Casielles-Suárez, Vallduví.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this paper?
The paper explores the syntactic and pragmatic nature of "Focus Preposing" in English, specifically examining the debate over whether the preposed element can be classified as both a focus and a topic.
What are the central thematic fields?
The work focuses on information structure, specifically looking at how different preposing constructions interact with discourse, focus placement, and topicalization.
What is the primary research question?
The research asks whether the preposed element in a Focus Preposing construction contains only the focus of the utterance or if it simultaneously functions as a topical element.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The author uses a literature-based theoretical analysis, comparing models proposed by linguists such as Casielles-Suárez, Vallduví, and Birner & Ward to evaluate existing arguments.
What topics are covered in the main body?
The main body covers the Reconstruction Analysis of Vallduví, the interaction between Focus/Background and Topic/Comment dichotomies, and a comparative study between Focus Preposing and Topicalization.
Which keywords characterize the work?
Key terms include Focus Preposing, Topicalization, Information Structure, Backward Looking Center, and Open Proposition.
How does the author distinguish between Focus Preposing and Topicalization?
The author argues that in Focus Preposing, the preposed element contains the focus, whereas in Topicalization, the preposed element contains the topic and the focus is located elsewhere in the sentence.
Why does the author conclude that "topical focus" is not a satisfactory concept?
The author concludes that attempts to label the preposed element as both topical and focus are not supported by the evidence and that the identified link to previous discourse (the BLC) does not inherently make an element topical.
What role does the "Backward Looking Center" (BLC) play in the argument?
The BLC represents the relationship of a constituent to previously evoked discourse entities; the author demonstrates that since both preposed and non-preposed elements can be BLCs, being a BLC is not sufficient to qualify an element as topical.
Can the example of "Bill's youngest sister" be compared to Focus Preposing?
No, the author argues that the cited example of a focused element inside a topic cannot be compared to Focus Preposing because, in Focus Preposing, the preposed element is typically the only focus allowed in the sentence.
- Quote paper
- Stefanie Schmitz (Author), 2008, Topical Focus in Focus Preposing Constructions, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/202850
