M Soledad Del Valle Moreno

Proffesor: ngel Jimnez Fernndez

Mental Categories and Linguistic Structures
15th May 2016

TYPOLOGY OF TOPICS AND FOCI

Some authors have examined the extent and composition of phrasal hierarchies in
the left periphery of different clause types. As a result, they distinguished the following
types of clause: root, root-like and different types of embedded clauses.

According to Bianchi and Frascarelli (2010) Discourse categories have different

functions in conversational dynamics and are associated with specific formal (syntax-
intonation) properties. Therefore, the researchers focused on the projection of discourse
categories and, consequently, established a clause-related distinction for different types
of topics. As a consequence, topics can be classified as Aboutness-Shift topics (A-S
topics), Contrastive topics (C-topics) and Familiar/Given topics (G-topics) among others.

A-S topics are newly introduced or reintroduced and changed to (thereby

exhibiting a shifting function in the discourse). In addition, they are restricted to root
clauses. However, C-topics do not have such impact on the Focus value of the sentence
(cf. Bring 2003) as they are used to break down a complex proposition into a
conjunction of simpler ones in which a predicate applies separately to each member of a
salient set (cf. Bianchi and Frascarelli 2010). In opposition to A-S topics, C-Topics are
not restricted to root clauses although the meaning of such clauses must remain at the
propositional level. G-topics are a special kind of discourse markers, as they can be
considered as D-linked constituents because they refer to purely given information salient
in the conversation. What is more, this type of topic is characterised by a high tone that
is aligned on the tonic vowel (H*) often realized as what is called B-Accent in English,
that is as a complex (L+H) tone (c.f. Bring, 2003).

Topic selection can be considered as a speech act itself, and more specifically, an
initiating speech act that requires a subsequent speech act, like an assertion, question,
command, or curse about the entity that was selected (Krifka, 2001:25). Therefore, topic
selection would be a conversational move and, consequently, it would require some sort
of illocutionary force. That is to say, when we speak we do things with words (Austin,
1962), we mean something that may not correspond directly with the utterance produced
and we intend something as well. As a consequence, topic selection is much the same as
a question, which requires a subsequent answer.

For instance, in Jimnez Fernndezs example (3) You always talk about Leo
(as for) your sister, how is she doing? the speaker is initiating a speech act that may be
followed by a second move (i.e. an answer) for example: shes fine, but Leo is always ill
and that is why I talk about him most of the time. Then, due to the requirement of
illocutionary force Krifka (2007) suggests two dimensions of the Common Ground (CG)
which are the CG content (sequence of conversational moves) and the CG management
(instructions that help the interlocutor to decode the moves).

Discourse categories can also be applied to the classification of focus. This is due
to that they serve two discourse functions. Therefore, we can distinguish two main types:
Informative Focus (IF) if the phrase serves to introduce new information and Contrastive
Focus (CF) if it is to introduce a contrast with respect to a previous assertion by means of
denying one part and proposing another part.

Cruschina (2012) and Zubizarreta (1998) claim that there is parametric distinction
with respect to IF, due to that in some languages such as Romance languages the left
periphery is reserved for CF and the position of IF is sentence-internal (typically
occurring in postverbal position). They show this through evidence in Spanish and Italian.
What is more, it seems that there is microparametric variation in Southern Peninsular
Spanish according to Jimnez Fernndez. This would show the availability of a left-
periphery position for purely IF. However, some speakers of SPS claimed that they would
accept fronted IF as grammatical while they find it less natural when asked the following:

Si te hiciesen la siguiente pregunta, cul de estas respuestas daras por vlida?:

Qu compr Paula?

A) Paula compr manzanas.

B) Manzanas, compr Paula.
C) A y B son correctas.

8 people out of 9 answered C, while 2 of them said that it was less natural but thed accept
it.
 As we have discussed above, CF implies removal of information and insertion of
new information. An interesting example of this type of focus might be an ironic sentence
in Spanish as the following: (1) a: Vas a volver en autobs? b: No, en taxi me vuelvo.
In this example, B isnt really understood as rejecting a part of a previous assertion and
proposing a new piece of information in comparison to the same sentence in a non-
metaphorical way. Another type of focus is the Mirative focus (MF) which differs from
A-S foci in the sense that the formers do not merely inform about something, but rather
warn the hearer that the new information will be unexpected. This might be the majority
of hyperbolic sentences such (2) Qu calor hace! CUARENTA GRADOS en el mes de
abril a las 8 de la tarde!. In the example, the DP cuarenta grados has been preposed to
indicate the speakers unexpectedness.

CF and MF are said to behave differently in syntactic terms. On the one hand, in
mirative contexts the target sentence is an assertion and the context forces the mirative
connotation. On the other hand, sentence with CF is a reply to a previous assertion, which
corrects one piece of this previous assertion. The corrected part can explicitly be
mentioned in a negative coda. Compare the following examples:

(3) [Gloria and her friend talk about Ral]

A: y deca que estaba tieso!

No te vas a creer dnde fue anoche. A LA TERRAZA EME nada menos!

(4) [Gloria and her friend talk about Ral]

A: Creo que Ral se qued en casa anoche.

B: qu dices? EN LA TERRAZA EME se pas toda la noche! No en su

casa!

To conclude, discourse markers seem rather interesting constituents to analyse

topic and focus types as the examples provided show evidence that their relationship is
essential for daily conversation. Speakers use topic selection as a way to initiate
communicative exchanges, and, consequently, these must be taken into account when
explaining how sentences are built. A comparison between Romance languages and
Germanic languages or other types of language might reveal further striking parametric
differences (or similarities?) in future research.