Hubbry Logo
Topic and commentTopic and commentMain
Open search
Topic and comment
Community hub
Topic and comment
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Topic and comment
Topic and comment
Topic and comment
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Grammatical features
Related to nouns
Related to verbs
General features
Syntax relationships
Semantics
Phenomena

In linguistics, the topic, or theme, of a sentence is what is being talked about, and the comment (rheme or focus)[1] is what is being said about the topic. This division into old vs. new content is called information structure. It is generally agreed that clauses are divided into topic vs. comment, but in certain cases, the boundary between them depends on the specific grammatical theory that is used to analyze the sentence.

The topic of a sentence is distinct from the grammatical subject. The topic is defined by pragmatic considerations, that is, the context that provides meaning. The grammatical subject is defined by syntax. In any given sentence the topic and grammatical subject may be the same, but they need not be. For example, in the sentence "As for the little girl, the dog bit her", the subject is "the dog", but the topic is "the little girl".

The topic is what is being talked about and the subject is what is doing the action. They may be distinct concepts from the concept agent (or actor), which is the "doer" and is defined by semantics: the contextual meaning of the sentence in the paragraph. In English clauses with a verb in the passive voice, for instance, the topic is typically the subject, and the agent may be omitted or follow the preposition by. For example, in the sentence "The little girl was bitten by the dog", "the little girl" is both the subject and the topic, but "the dog" is the agent.

In some languages, word order and other syntactic phenomena are determined largely by the topic–comment (theme–rheme) structure. Such languages are sometimes referred to as topic-prominent language. Korean and Japanese are often given as examples.

Definitions and examples

[edit]

The sentence- or clause-level "topic", or "theme", can be defined in a number of different ways. Among the most common are

  • the phrase in a clause that the rest of the clause is understood to be about,
  • a special position in a clause (often at the right or left-edge of the clause) where topics typically appear.

In an ordinary English clause, the subject is normally the same as the topic/theme (example 1) even in the passive voice, when the subject is a patient, not an agent such as in example 2:

  1. The dog bit the little girl.
  2. The little girl was bitten by the dog.

Those clauses have different topics: the first is about the dog, and the second is about the little girl.

In English, it is possible to use other sentence structures to show the topic of the sentence such as these:

  • As for the little girl, the dog bit her.
  • It was the little girl that the dog bit.

The case of expletives is sometimes rather complex. Consider sentences with expletives (meaningless subjects), like:

  • It is raining.
  • There is some room in this house.
  • There are two days in the year in which the day and the night are equal in length.

In those examples, the syntactic subject position (to the left of the verb) is manned by the meaningless expletive ("it" or "there"), whose sole purpose is satisfying the extended projection principle, and is nevertheless necessary. In those sentences, the topic is never the subject but is determined pragmatically. In all these cases, the whole sentence refers to the comment part.[2]

The relation between topic (theme) and comment (rheme, focus) should not be confused with the topic–comment relation in the Rhetorical Structure Theory Discourse Treebank (RST-DT) corpus, where it is defined as "a general statement or topic of discussion is introduced, after which a specific remark is made on the statement or topic". For example: "[As far as the pound goes,] [some traders say a slide toward support at 1.5500 may be a favorable development for the dollar this week.]"[3][4]

Realization of topic–comment

[edit]

Different languages mark topics in different ways. Distinct intonation and word-order are the most common means. The tendency to place topicalized constituents sentence-initially ("topic fronting") is widespread. Topic fronting refers to placing the topic at the beginning of a clause, regardless of whether or not it is marked.[5] Again, linguists disagree on many details.

Languages often show different kinds of grammar between sentences that introduce new topics and those that continue discussing previously-established topics.

When a sentence continues discussing a previously-established topic, it is likely to use pronouns to refer to the topic. Such topics tend to be subjects. In many languages, pronouns referring to previously-established topics use pro-drop.

In English

[edit]

In English, the topic, or theme, comes first in the clause and is typically marked out by intonation as well.[6]

English is quite capable of using a topic-prominent formulation, instead of a subject-prominent formulation, when context makes it desirable for one reason or another. A typical pattern for doing so is opening with a class of prepositions such as as for, as regards, regarding, concerning, respecting, on, re, and others. Pedagogically or expositorily, that approach has value especially when speakers know that they need to lead the listener's attention from one topic to another in a deftly-efficient manner. They sometimes actively avoid misplacement of the focus of attention from moment to moment. However, topic-prominent languages might use that approach by default or obligately, but in subject-prominent ones such as English, it is merely an option, which often is not invoked.

In other languages

[edit]
  • In Japanese and Korean, the topic is usually marked with a postposition that serves as a topic marker, such as -wa (は) or 는/은, -(n)eun, respectively, which comes after the noun or phrase that is being topicalized.
  • In Côte d'Ivoire French, the topic is marked by the postposition "là". The topic can be, but is not necessarily a noun or a nominal group, for example: « Voiture-là est jolie deh » ("That car is pretty"); « Aujourd'hui-là il fait chaud » ("It's hot on that day"); « Pour toi-là n'est pas comme pour moi hein » ("For you it's not the same as for me, huh"); and « Nous qui sommes ici-là, on attend ça seulement » ("We who are here, we are waiting for that only").
  • So-called free word order languages such as Russian, Czech, and to some certain extent Chinese and German use word order as the primary means, and the topic usually precedes the focus. For example, in some Slavic languages such as Czech and Russian, both orders are possible. The order with the comment sentence-initial is referred to as subjective (Vilém Mathesius invented the term and opposed it to objective) and expresses certain emotional involvement. The two orders are distinguished by intonation.
  • In Modern Hebrew, a topic may follow its comment in informal speech. For example, the syntactic subject of this sentence is an expletive זה ("ze", lit. "this"):

זה

ze

this

מענין

meʿanyen

interesting

מאד

meʾod,

very,

הספר

ha-sefer

book

הזה

ha-ze

this

זה מענין מאד הספר הזה

ze meʿanyen meʾod, ha-sefer ha-ze

this interesting very, book this

"This book is very interesting."

  • In American Sign Language, a topic can be declared at the beginning of a sentence (indicated by raised eyebrows and head tilt) describing the referent, and the rest of the sentence describes what happens to that referent.

Practical applications

[edit]

The main application of the topic-comment structure is in the domain of speech technology, especially the design of embodied conversational agents (intonational focus assignment, relation between information structure and posture and gesture).[7] There were some attempts to apply the theory of topic/comment for information retrieval[8] and automatic summarization.[9]

History

[edit]

The distinction between subject and topic was probably first suggested by Henri Weil in 1844.[10] He established the connection between information structure and word order. Georg von der Gabelentz distinguished psychological subject (roughly topic) and psychological object (roughly focus). In the Prague school, the dichotomy, termed topic–focus articulation, has been studied mainly by Vilém Mathesius,[11] Jan Firbas, František Daneš, Petr Sgall and Eva Hajičová. They have been concerned mainly by its relation to intonation and word-order. Mathesius also pointed out that the topic does not provide new information but connects the sentence to the context. The work of Michael Halliday in the 1960s is responsible for developing linguistic science through his systemic functional linguistics model for English.[12]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Topic and comment

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
In linguistics, the topic-comment structure is a fundamental organizational principle of sentences in which the topic constitutes the element that the sentence is about—typically an entity or concept intended to increase the addressee's knowledge about it—while the comment delivers the predication or information asserted relative to that topic. This structure contrasts with the subject-predicate organization prominent in languages like English, though it appears universally across languages, often marked by word order, particles, or intonation. Topic-comment constructions are particularly salient in topic-prominent languages such as Japanese and Korean, where the topic is frequently fronted and morphologically marked (e.g., the Japanese particle wa in "John-wa gakusei desu," meaning "As for John, he is a student"). In subject-prominent languages like English, the structure manifests through variations such as cleft sentences (e.g., "It was John who left") or left-dislocation (e.g., "That book, I read it yesterday"), allowing speakers to highlight aboutness without altering core syntax. Cross-linguistically, topics tend to occupy sentence-initial positions and may exhibit prosodic features like rising intonation (e.g., H% boundary tone in English) to distinguish them from the falling intonation typical of comments. The concept draws from earlier notions like theme-rheme or psychological subject-predicate, with modern formulations emphasizing pragmatic functions such as aboutness and referentiality, as explored in works on information structure. Debates persist on whether topics must be referential noun phrases, if sentences can have multiple topics, or if topicality operates on a gradient scale rather than discretely. In syntactic theory, topics often project as specifiers in a Topic Phrase (TopP), with comments as complements, influencing interpretations in constructions like pseudo-clefts or relative clauses. This structure not only aids coherence but also intersects with prosody, where tunes like HLH% signal topics and HLL% mark comments in spoken English.

Core Concepts

Definition and Distinctions

In linguistics, the topic-comment structure organizes a sentence such that the topic constitutes the element about which new information is provided, typically embodying given or presupposed content that serves as the discourse anchor, while the comment delivers the assertion or predicate focusing on that topic, often introducing novel or focused details. This partitioning facilitates efficient communication by aligning with the speaker's assumption of the listener's knowledge state, where the topic grounds the utterance in prior context and the comment advances the information flow. The topic-comment framework differs fundamentally from the subject-predicate structure, which pertains to involving syntactic roles like verb agreement and case marking, whereas topic-comment operates on a pragmatic level to manage coherence and information packaging. In subject-predicate constructions, the subject typically denotes the agent or theme that the predicate ascribes properties to, but this does not inherently address informational status; for instance, in a sentence like "The dog barked," the subject aligns with the topic as both the grammatical pivot and the aboutness element. Mismatches arise in constructions such as cleft sentences, e.g., "It was the dog that barked," where the focused element ("the dog") forms part of the comment, detaching the pragmatic topic from the grammatical subject to emphasize new information. These distinctions highlight how topic-comment prioritizes communicative function over syntactic form. Topic-comment integrates with broader information structure concepts, including the given-new —where topics tend to encode given information recoverable from , and comments convey new or rhematic content—and notions of focus, which may highlight specific comment elements for contrast or emphasis, as well as theme-rheme dynamics that similarly bifurcate utterances into starting-point themes and progressing rhemes. This interplay ensures that utterances are structured to match cognitive processing expectations, with topics often marked by or continuity signals to signal familiarity. Li and Thompson (1976) introduced a typological contrasting subject-prominent languages, where grammatical subjects are obligatory and central to sentence organization (e.g., requiring inversion or agreement), with topic-prominent languages, where the topic-comment alignment forms the core sentence type and topics can appear in asyndetic (connector-less) positions without disrupting grammaticality. Key criteria for identifying topic prominence include the prevalence of topic-comment as the unmarked sentence form, tolerance for detached or "" topics, absence of rigid subject-predicate rules like obligatory subjects in impersonal constructions, and infrequent use of dummy or expletive subjects; this typology underscores how some languages prioritize pragmatic aboutness over syntactic subjecthood.

Basic Examples

The topic-comment structure, where the topic represents the entity or about which new information (the comment) is provided, can be illustrated through straightforward constructions in various languages. In English, phrases like "As for the weather, it's raining" employ "as for" to explicitly mark the topic ("the weather"), separating it from the comment that asserts the new information. Similarly, passive constructions can front a topic by promoting the patient to subject position, as in "The book was written by the author," where "the book" serves as the topic receiving the comment about its creation, often to align with focus on the object rather than the agent. Cross-linguistically, similar patterns emerge without relying on subject-predicate alignment. For instance, in Japanese, the sentence "Watashi wa gakusei desu" translates literally as "As for me, [I am] a student," with the particle "wa" marking "watashi" (me) as the topic, while the comment "gakusei desu" provides the predication. This structure enhances discourse coherence by maintaining topic continuity across utterances, allowing speakers to signal what the ongoing discussion concerns. Consider a sequence like: "The dog barked loudly. It chased the cat into the yard," where the pronoun "it" in the second sentence refers back to "the dog" as the persistent topic, enabling efficient information flow without full repetition. Such continuity is quantified in discourse analysis through measures like referential distance, where closer referents (e.g., pronouns) indicate higher topic persistence. Common markers of topic-comment articulation include preposing (moving the topic to initial position), left-dislocation (placing the topic upfront with a resumptive in the comment, as in English "Your problems, I can't solve them"), and dedicated particles that abstractly frame the topic without syntactic integration into the core . These devices prioritize pragmatic salience over strict grammatical roles, facilitating clear communication .

Linguistic Realizations

In English

In English, a subject-prominent language, the topic-comment structure plays a secondary role to the canonical subject-verb-object (SVO) order, where the subject typically functions as the unmarked topic and the predicate provides the comment. This prominence of the subject limits the flexibility of topic positioning compared to topic-prominent languages, making explicit topic-comment realizations optional and often derived through specific syntactic or prosodic means. As a result, English relies on the subject as a grammaticalized topic, with deviations serving pragmatic purposes like emphasis or discourse continuity. Syntactic strategies for marking topic-comment in English include , it-c clefts, and wh-clefts. involves fronting a non-subject constituent to sentence-initial position, establishing it as the topic while the remainder forms the comment, as in "This book, I love it," where "this book" is the topic and the the comment. This adheres to constituency tests, confirming the fronted element as a coherent unit, though it is constrained by English's rigid . It-clefts, such as "It was John who left," typically split the into a comment-topic or topic-comment frame, with the clefted constituent often carrying new information in the comment and the relative clause providing background as topic; prosodic stress falls on the comment for focus. Wh-clefts, or pseudo-clefts, consistently realize topic-comment by placing the wh-clause as topic followed by the clefted constituent as comment, exemplified by "What I need is time," where the wh-clause introduces the topic and the copula links to the focused comment. These cleft constructions are used to highlight information , with wh-clefts exclusively topic-comment oriented in discourse. Prosodically, English employs intonation contours and stress to distinguish topic from comment, compensating for syntactic constraints. Topics often receive a falling tone or HLH% boundary tone (high pitch accent with low-high continuation and high boundary), signaling given information, while comments feature a rising or HLL% contour (high accent with low-low boundary) to convey new or focused content, as in topics marked by deaccenting and boundary rises versus accented comments. Stress placement further aids focus, with nuclear stress on the comment's key element to highlight contrast or novelty, enhancing the topic-comment articulation in spoken discourse. Empirical analysis of intonation in natural speech confirms a significant correlation between these prosodic features and information structure, with H% tones associating with topics and L% with comments (p < 0.001). Despite these mechanisms, English's subject-initial preference imposes constraints on topic-comment realization, rendering it optional and less obligatory than in topic-prominent languages. The fixed SVO syntax and lack of rich case-marking restrict free topic fronting, often requiring resumptive pronouns or clefts to maintain grammaticality, and dummy subjects like "it" or "there" fill obligatory subject positions even when semantically empty. This subject prominence historically converges topic and subject functions, limiting pragmatic rearrangements without violating core syntax. Corpus studies illustrate these patterns, revealing topic-comment structures—often with subjects as topics—in approximately 88% of main clauses across analyzed texts, though marked forms like topicalization and clefts occur less frequently in spoken varieties due to processing demands.

In Non-Indo-European Languages

In topic-prominent languages such as Japanese, Korean, and Chinese, the topic-comment structure forms the core organizational principle of clauses, often overriding strict subject-predicate hierarchies typical of subject-prominent languages. In Japanese, the particle wa explicitly marks the topic, which is typically placed sentence-initially to establish the frame for the comment that provides new information about it. For instance, in the sentence Watashi wa gakusei desu ("As for me, [I] am a student"), sets the topic, while the comment gakusei desu predicates a property of it, allowing for flexible subject omission via zero anaphora if contextually recoverable. This structure reflects Japanese's discourse-driven syntax, where wa-marked topics frequently initiate clauses to maintain continuity across utterances. Korean employs a similar system with the topic particle -nun (or its allomorph -un), which highlights the topic in initial position, as in Na-nun haksaeng-i-da ("As for me, [I] am a student"). This marking facilitates topic continuity in conversation, where the comment often elaborates on the topic through verb agreement adjustments that align with discourse focus rather than rigid grammatical roles. Unlike subject markers like -ka, the topic particle emphasizes aboutness, enabling zero anaphora for previously established elements and supporting high rates of topic persistence in narrative discourse. Chinese exemplifies topic prominence through bare topics without dedicated particles or copulas, relying on and to separate the topic from the comment. In constructions like Zhè běn shū, wǒ kàn guò ("This book, [I] have read"), the initial zhè běn shū functions as the topic, with the following as the gapped comment, often omitting subjects via zero anaphora. This "topic-comment" blueprint dominates Chinese syntax, underscoring the language's typological shift away from subject-predicate alignment. Beyond , Turkish utilizes postposed topics in flexible constructions to convey information structure, where topics can appear after the comment for antitopic effects, as in right-dislocation for emphasis or recovery of given information: Okudum, kitabı ("[I] read it, the "). Prosody and intonation, alongside , mark these topics, adjusting agreement to fit needs rather than fixed positions. Hungarian, with its free , positions topics initially to articulate communicative focus, as in A könyv-t olvastam ("The book-[topic] [I] read"), where the topic prefix or position signals aboutness, often combined with zero anaphora for non-topical arguments. -initial focus structures further delineate the comment, reflecting Hungarian's discourse-configurational nature. In (ASL), employs sentence-initial position alongside non-manual markers like raised eyebrows and head tilts to distinguish topics from comments, as in signing "" (with raised brows) followed by "CHASE " ("As for the dog, [it] chased the cat"). These visual cues, including eye gaze and body shifts, replace particles, enabling zero anaphora for recoverable elements and adapting verb agreement to topical frames in narrative signing. Common marking mechanisms across these languages include dedicated particles (wa, -nun), zero anaphora for discourse continuity, and verb agreement modifications that prioritize topical relations over subjecthood. In Japanese discourse, for example, topic-initial clauses with wa constitute a majority, facilitating efficient information flow. A notable cross-linguistic pattern is double-subject constructions, where an overarching topic embeds a sub-topic, as in Japanese John-wa team-ga maketa ("As for John, the team lost"), interpreting "John" as the broad topic and "team" as its possessive sub-topic linked to the comment. Similar patterns appear in Korean John-un team-i jagnaesseo and Chinese Yuēhàn de duìshǒu shū le ("John's team lost"), using genitive or bare juxtaposition without copulas to layer topicality, a hallmark of topic-prominent typology.

Theoretical Foundations

Historical Origins

The origins of the topic-comment structure in linguistics can be traced to 19th-century philology, where scholars began distinguishing between grammatical form and psychological function in sentence organization. In 1844, Henri Weil published De l'ordre des mots dans les langues civilisées, observing that the sequence of words in a sentence often diverges from the sequence of ideas, with the psychological subject representing the topic—what the sentence is about—and the remainder providing commentary on it. This distinction laid the groundwork for later conceptualizations of information structure, emphasizing communicative intent over purely syntactic rules. Building on Weil's insights, late-19th-century linguists refined the psychological dimension of sentences. Georg von der Gabelentz, in 1869, introduced the terms psychological subject and psychological predicate, highlighting the "aboutness" role of the former as the starting point for development. Hermann Paul further advanced this in 1880 with Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte, proposing a question-test method to identify , thereby linking topic identification to speaker assumptions about shared knowledge. These contributions shifted focus from historical language evolution to synchronic psychological processes, prefiguring functional analyses. The early saw precursors to modern topic-comment theory through communicative lenses. In , Hermann Ammann's Die menschliche Rede explicitly termed the initial known element "theme" and the subsequent new information "rheme," framing sentences as vehicles for information progression. Vilém Mathesius advanced this in 1929 with his seminal article on functional sentence perspective, analyzing in to show how theme (given information) typically precedes rheme (new or focused information), thus establishing a dynamic model of sentence function. , active in the Prague School during the 1930s, reinforced these ideas by integrating functional perspectives into , viewing topic-comment as part of language's broader semiotic and communicative systems. After , linguistics experienced a shift from American structuralism's form-centric approach—epitomized by Bloomfieldian methods—to functionalism, revitalizing Prague School principles amid disrupted European centers. Scholars like Jan Firbas in 1964 extended functional sentence perspective with the concept of communicative dynamism, using early text collections (such as literary excerpts and transcribed dialogues) as rudimentary corpora to demonstrate how information accumulates across sentences in English and Czech. These analyses, drawn from limited but representative samples, illustrated topic-comment's role in maintaining discourse coherence. Through the pre-1970s period, investigations remained centered on European languages, particularly Indo-European ones like German, English, and Slavic tongues, where topic-comment patterns were probed via syntactic variations and contextual examples rather than cross-linguistic typology.

Influential Frameworks

The School's Functional Sentence Perspective (FSP), developed by Vilém Mathesius and elaborated by Jan Firbas, represents a foundational functionalist framework for analyzing topic-comment structures through the lens of theme-rheme progression. Firbas formalized the theme as the initial, contextually bound element that sets the stage for the rheme, which carries new and advances communicative dynamism across sentences. This progression is determined by factors such as , intonation, and contextual dependencies, emphasizing how sentences build in . In , Michael Halliday's model extends topic-comment analysis by integrating it with other clause systems, treating theme (aligned with topic) as the point of departure in the message, realized through initial positioning and linked to transitivity (experiential meaning) and mood (interpersonal meaning). Halliday posits that theme-rheme structure operates alongside these to organize the clause's metafunctional roles, where the rheme (comment) develops the theme's informational content. This holistic approach underscores language as a social semiotic system, with information structure contributing to textual coherence. Generative linguistics incorporates topic-comment via hierarchical projections in the clause structure. Luigi Rizzi's 1997 work on the of the left periphery posits a Topic Phrase (TopP) with recursive specifiers for topics, encoding information structure through movement and distinguishing topics from foci. Complementing this, Noam Chomsky's 1995 provides a framework for adapting information structure by deriving topic-comment asymmetries from economy-driven operations like feature checking and Agree, minimizing overt movements while accommodating interface requirements at for discourse interpretation. Other influential models refine these ideas through typological and interface perspectives. Knud Lambrecht's 1994 typology of information structure distinguishes sentence types based on activation states of referents, classifying topic-comment articulations into all-new, predicate-focus, and argument-focus structures, where topics evoke accessible mental representations and comments assert new predicates about them. Enric Vallduví's 1992 site-comment framework, developed in a generative context, decomposes information packaging into ground elements (link and tail, serving site-like roles) and focus (comment), arguing for a dedicated informational component that maps functions onto syntactic positions without relying on traditional topic-rheme binaries.

Contemporary Applications

In Language Processing and AI

In natural language processing (NLP), the topic-comment structure has been incorporated into computational models to enhance tasks such as text generation and discourse analysis, particularly through extensions of probabilistic topic modeling techniques like Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) in the 2010s. These extensions aim to detect and leverage topic-comment patterns for better sentence-level understanding, as seen in hierarchical planning models that first outline topics before generating comments, improving coherence in abstract writing for scientific papers. Machine translation (MT) systems have increasingly addressed challenges in translating topic-prominent languages, where topic-comment structures dominate, through advancements in neural MT (NMT) post-2015. Subsequent context-aware NMT models for English-Japanese further refine this by incorporating sentence-level context to preserve topic-comment flow. In speech synthesis, prosodic modeling integrates topic-comment information to generate natural intonation patterns in text-to-speech (TTS) systems. Recent developments in the leverage transformer-based models for classifying information structure, including topic-comment elements, to support nuanced NLP tasks. However, applications in low-resource languages face persistent challenges, such as scarce annotated corpora for training information structure detectors, limiting model robustness and requiring from high-resource languages like English or Japanese, which often underperforms by 10-15% on cross-lingual benchmarks.

In Cognitive Linguistics

In , the topic-comment structure influences sentence comprehension by facilitating the integration of given and new information, as demonstrated through eye-tracking studies. Research shows that sentences aligned with a given-new order—where the topic introduces familiar information followed by novel comment details—result in shorter total reading times (approximately 16,015 ms compared to 16,955 ms for new-given orders) and reduced regressions during processing. This canonical ordering enhances efficiency by minimizing in resolving referential relations, particularly in languages like Spanish where canonicity interacts with information structure. Neurolinguistic investigations reveal distinct brain activation patterns for processing topic-comment elements. Event-related potential (ERP) studies indicate that topic processing involves multi-dimensional cues like givenness and animacy, with reduced N400 amplitudes for given topics due to heightened predictability, and enhanced late positivity when animate entities compete for topic prominence over givenness in topic-prominent languages like Chinese. Cross-cultural cognitive research highlights differences in topic salience between speakers of topic-prominent and subject-prominent s, particularly in bilingual contexts. In topic-prominent languages such as Korean, heritage speakers and L2 learners exhibit challenges with null topics in anaphoric contexts, rating them lower in acceptability (mean scores around 2.5-3.0 on a 5-point scale) compared to native speakers, though they perform better in contrastive contexts due to prosodic sensitivity. ERP evidence from bilingual processing further supports varied topic integration, with late positivity effects signaling updates that differ based on typology, as seen in heightened sensitivity to topic competition among Chinese-English bilinguals. Theoretical connections to emphasize how gestures align with topic-comment dynamics in discourse production. Bimanual gesturing often reflects this structure, with the nondominant left hand sustaining topical (given) information as or classifier, while the dominant right hand introduces comment (new) details, mirroring neural lateralization and facilitating embodied simulation of information flow. Additionally, co-speech gestures synchronize with intonational pitch accents to demarcate given-new boundaries, with over 95% of gestural apices aligning with accents to spatially metaphorize topic-comment relations, such as positioning topics centrally and comments peripherally in narrative discourse.

References

  1. https://www.sfu.ca/~hedberg/Helsinki_paper.pdf
  2. https://www.igntu.ac.in/eContent/IGNTU-eContent-845977415543-MA-Linguistics-2-HarjitSingh-IntroductiontoSemanticsandPragmatics-6.pdf
  3. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0024384103001724
  4. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/244443556_Subject_and_Topic_A_New_Typology_of_Language
  5. https://people.brandeis.edu/~smalamud/ling140/4-13-chafe76-DrewLefebvre.pdf
  6. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0010028572900230
  7. https://aclanthology.org/Y06-1026.pdf
  8. https://benjamins.com/catalog/tsl.3
  9. https://s-space.snu.ac.kr/bitstream/10371/72349/1/05.pdf
  10. https://people.umass.edu/bhatt/401-s05/401-s05-a2.pdf
  11. https://www.sfu.ca/~hedberg/Clefts_paper17.pdf
  12. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/300848918_The_information_structure_of_it_-clefts_wh_-clefts_and_reverse_wh_-clefts_in_English
  13. https://roa.rutgers.edu/files/774-0905/774-FERY-0-0.PDF
  14. https://digital.car.chula.ac.th/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9586&context=chulaetd
  15. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01113/full
  16. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270163821_Is_Korean_-nun_a_topic_marker_On_the_nature_of_-nun_and_its_relation_to_information_structure
  17. https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/kl.2.01hms
  18. https://www.jstor.org/stable/417661
  19. https://aclanthology.org/Y02-1036.pdf
  20. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0024384103000123
  21. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178216
  22. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23273798.2019.1667001
  23. https://repository.kulib.kyoto-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2433/215634/2/dnink00779.pdf
  24. https://aclanthology.org/Y02-1034.pdf
  25. https://idsl1.phil-fak.uni-koeln.de/sites/IDSLI/dozentenseiten/Heusinger/Publikationen/2002/Heusinger2002_Information_structure_partition.pdf
  26. https://benjamins.com/catalog/hl.5.3.05adj
  27. https://referenceworks.brill.com/display/entries/EALO/EALL-COM-0345.xml
  28. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342591293_Structuralism_or_Functionalism_The_Linguistic_Theory_of_Prague_School
  29. https://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/5066/1/5066.pdf
  30. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-linguistics/article/notes-on-transitivity-and-theme-in-english-part-i/6031BF777A168C3470006CD7D24A0FED
  31. https://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/571/readings/Rizzi97.pdf
  32. http://www.its.caltech.edu/~matilde/ChomskyMinimalistProgram.pdf
  33. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/information-structure-and-sentence-form/8CFE9493CC5A61B6DBA7D68E7C73729A
  34. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/76379509.pdf
  35. https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.11976
  36. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/natural-language-processing/article/natural-language-processing-applications-for-lowresource-languages/7D3DA31DB6C01B13C6B1F698D4495951
  37. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.629724
  38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2014.01.046
  39. https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2017-0007
  40. https://amor.cms.hu-berlin.de/~h2816i3x/Talks/BimanualCoordination.pdf
  41. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239921137_Structuring_Information_through_Gesture_and_Intonation
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.