In English, the lowest position of the Topic in CP does not appear to be available for left realizations of the G-Topic. The reason for such unavailability remains unexplained. What is known, however, is that there are no recognized cases of the G-Topic dislocated on the left. In spite of this, the present analysis will lead us to maintain that, even in this language, left dislocation of the G-Topic is present, but depends on “particular structural conditions of the CP” and on the uniqueness of such a Topic as the only element in CP that can occupy the functional projection of TopP. This paper is divided into three main sections: in § 2, we will present an introduction to the notion of Topic and to other notions considered important to understand subjects in question. In § 3, we will explain in detail our aforementioned hypothesis; finally, in § 4, we will discuss right dislocations of the G-Topic and, in particular, the so-called ‘accented’ Topic.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The Topic
3. CLLD, LD and TOP
3.1. G-Topic
3.2 Structural conditions of the CP for the realization of the DS G-Topic.
4. Topic on the right
4.1 RD Topic versus emarginalization
4.2 The data
5. Conclusions
Research Objectives and Themes
This study investigates the syntactic and pragmatic properties of the "G-Topic" (Familiar Topic) in English and Italian, specifically addressing the crosslinguistic disparity in its left-dislocation patterns and proposing structural conditions that allow for such realizations in English.
- The properties and functions of the Familiar Topic at the syntax-prosody interface.
- The crosslinguistic mismatch between English and Italian regarding G-Topic left-dislocation.
- A detailed analysis of right-dislocated (RD) Topics and the "accented" Topic.
- The distinction between RD Topics and the phenomenon of emarginalization.
Excerpt from the Book
3.2 Structural conditions of the CP for the realization of the DS G-Topic.
As we have already seen in the previous section, an explanation for the impossibility of generating G-Topic LDs in English, has not yet been found; at the moment this linguistic fact is unresolved. The only known datum concerns its unacceptability for native English speakers of sentences in which even only one G-Topic LD appears. To illustrate the latter, we propose the following examples, drawn from our graduate thesis, which were subject to a grammaticality judgement test:
(3) *George, a diamond, in that shop, he bought for me. My ex-boyfriend never did.
(4) *Susan, this car, she would never drive, my sister did for a long time.
(5) *For Christmas, to Mary, I gave a diamond and for her birthday, a car, I’m planning to buy!
None of the sentences above was judged grammatical: the presence of just one G-Topic (in bold) makes the sentence ungrammatical. Even if this supports the hypothesis of the unavailability of Topic low position in English (cf. Haegeman 2006), we do not believe that realizations of the G-Topic LD are impossible, but that they are subject to particular structural conditions which we propose in (6):
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: The chapter sets the framework for the study of the Parameter of linguistic variation in Generative Grammar, focusing on the properties of the Familiar Topic.
2. The Topic: This chapter provides a definition of the Topic based on Information Structure, distinguishing it from Focus and clarifying the Common Ground (CG) content and management.
3. CLLD, LD and TOP: The author compares Clitic Left Dislocation, Topicalization, and Left Dislocation to establish notional homogeneity in the analysis of aboutness-shift and contrastive Topics.
3.1. G-Topic: This section investigates the G-Topic hierarchy and explores why the lowest position of TopP is traditionally considered inactive in English.
3.2 Structural conditions of the CP for the realization of the DS G-Topic.: The author proposes specific structural constraints that may allow for G-Topic left-dislocation in English, challenging previous assumptions of their impossibility.
4. Topic on the right: This chapter examines contrasting analyses of right-dislocated Topics, focusing on the internal vs. external analysis of their generation.
4.1 RD Topic versus emarginalization: The section demonstrates how RD Topics are distinct from emarginalization, which is identified as a prosodic consequence of focalization.
4.2 The data: The author discusses empirical data where RD G-Topics do not function as topical continuity markers but rather as shifting signals for information status.
5. Conclusions: The final chapter summarizes the findings regarding the functions of the G-Topic and suggests the need for further research to validate the proposed structural hypotheses.
Keywords
Generative Grammar, G-Topic, Familiar Topic, Left Dislocation, Right Dislocation, Information Structure, Syntax-Prosody Interface, Common Ground, Finiteness, Logophoric Centre, Emarginalization, Topicalization, Clitic Left Dislocation, Accented Topic.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this research?
The research focuses on the properties and functions of the "G-Topic" (Familiar Topic) and its realizations in different languages, specifically exploring why it is often absent in English left-dislocation structures compared to Italian.
What are the central themes discussed?
The central themes include the syntax-prosody interface, the structural hierarchy of topics, the distinction between "aboutness" and "contrastive" topics, and the pragmatic status of right-dislocated topics.
What is the research hypothesis?
The author hypothesizes that left-dislocated G-Topics are not impossible in English, but are instead subject to specific, previously unidentified structural conditions within the CP (Complementizer Phrase).
Which scientific methodology is utilized?
The study employs a Generative Grammar framework, using comparative linguistic analysis, grammaticality judgment tests, and an evaluation of existing literature on information structure and clitic pronouns.
What does the main body of the work address?
The main body examines the definitions of the Topic, compares various dislocation types (CLLD, LD, TOP), analyzes the "active" vs "inactive" status of TopP in different languages, and distinguishes RD Topics from emargination.
How are the key terms defined?
Key terms such as G-Topic, Aboutness-shift Topic, and RD Topic are defined through the lens of functional characterization at the interface of syntax and prosody, moving beyond simple Given/New dichotomies.
How does the author distinguish between RD Topics and emarginalization?
The author argues, following Cardinaletti and Frascarelli, that emarginalization is a prosodic consequence of focalization, whereas RD Topics are independently merged in the CP area with specific pragmatic functions.
What is the significance of the "accented" RD Topic?
The "accented" RD Topic is characterized by a rising intonational contour, which signals a shift in the pragmatic status of information—indicating that information, previously unknown, has become part of the common knowledge.
Why are the examples (14) and (15) significant?
These examples illustrate a specific function of right-dislocated structures where the speaker aims to communicate awareness of information that was not previously part of the common ground, showing a pragmatic status shift.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Ilaria Bacolini (Autor:in), 2010, Left and Right Dislocation of the G-Topic, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/206087
