ResearchGate

S e e d is c u s s io n s , s t a t s , a n d a u t h o r p r o f ile s f o r t h is p u b lic a t io n a t : h t tp s :/ / w w w .re s e a rc h g a te .n e t/ p u b lic a tio n / 2 4 4 4 4 3 5 5 6

Subject and Topic: A New Typology of Language

A r tic le •January 1976

CITATIONS READS

498 5,530

2 a u th o rs , including:

Sandra A. Thompson
University of California, Santa Barbara
113 PUBLICATIONS 11,342 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sandra A. Thompson on 10 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancem ent of the dow nloaded file.
 •^n. so_b, L ,
31
C 3 ~ w A T " ^ ^ 1 I <L i.

T I pa O ; G > .ca_ A L jW i IC -

SUBJECT A N D TOPIC: A N E W T Y POLOGY OF LANGUAGE*

by

Charles N. Li
Sandra A. Th o m pson

*This paper is an a m a l g a m a t i o n of three earlier papers and

renders them o b s o l e t e : (1) "Chinese as a Topic-Prominent Lan­
guage , " pr e p a r e d and c irculated for the 7th International
C o nference on Sin o - T i b e t a n L a n g u a g e s and L i n g u i s t i c s , October,
1974; (2) "Subject and Topic: A N e w Typology of Language,"
p resented at the L S A Annu a l Meeting, N ew York, December, 1974;
(3) "Evidence A g a inst T o p i c a l i z a t i o n in Topic-Prominent Lan­
guages ,n c irculated pri o r to the Symposium on Subject and
T o p i c . We are grateful to the p articipants of the Symposium
and to James H-Y Tai for their v a luable comments and to Dr.
Edward Hope, who responded from B a n gkok to our inquiries about
a numb e r of Li s u c o n s t r u c t i o n s . During the preparation of
this p a p e r , Charles N. Li was supported by a fellowship from
the A m e r i c a n C o u ncil of L e a rned S o c i e t i e s .
 I. Introduction, Since the emergence of descriptive
l i n g u i s t i c s , linguists have d i s agreed among themselves over
the question of the extent to w h ich languages could be expec- t
ted to differ from one another. The present paper is an
attempt to lay the foundation for a typology based on the
grammatical relations s u b ject-predicate and t o p i c - c o m m e n t .
The not i o n of subject has long been considered a basic gr a m ­
matical relation in the sentential structure of a l a n g u a g e .
However, the evidence we have gathered from certain languages
suggests that in these languages the basic constructions
manifes t a topic-comment relation rather than a subject-pre­
dicate relation. This evidence shows not only that the
notion of topic m a y be as basic as that of subject in g r a m ­
m a t ical d e s c r i p t i o n s , but also that languages may differ in
their strategies in c onstruction sentences according to the
prominence of the notions of topic and s u b j e c t . A c c o rding to
our study, there are four basic types of l a n g u a g e s : (i) lan­
guages that are subject-prominent (a term introduced by E.L.
K e e n a n ) ; (ii) languages that are t o p i c - p r o m i n e n t ; (iii) lan­
guages that are bot h subject-prominent and t o p i c - p r o m i n e n t ;
(iv) languages that are nei t h e r subject-prominent nor topic-
prominent. In subject-prominent (Sp) l a n g u a g e s , the s truc­
ture of sentences favors a descr i p t i o n in w h ich the g rammati­
cal relation sub j e ct-predicate plays a m a jor role; in topic-
prominent (Tp) l a n g u a g e s , the b a s i c structure of sentences
favors a description in w hich the g r ammatical relation topic-
comment plays a m a j o r r o l e . In type (iii) l a n g u a g e s , there
are two equally important distinct sentence c o n s t r u c t i o n s ,
the subj ect-predicate c o nstruction and the topic-coxrrment con­
struction; in type (iv) l a n g u a g e s , the subj ect and the topic
have me r g e d and are no longer d i s t inguishable in all sentence
t y p e s . In order to clarify the subj ect-predicate construc­
tion and the topic-coranient construction, we may use two types
of English sentences as e x a m p l e s :
1 Joh n hit M a r y .
Subject Predicate
2 As for education, John prefers Bertrand Russell *s i d e a s .
Topic Comment
In Sp l a n g u a g e s , the b asic sentence structure is similar to
1 ，whereas in Tp languages, the basic sentence structure is
similar to 2. However, this is not to say that in Tp langua­
ges, one cannot identify subjects, or that Sp languages do
not have t o p i c s . In fact, all the languages we have i n v esti­
gated have the topic-comment construction, and although not
all languages have the s u b j e c t -predicate construction, there
appear to be ways of identifying subjects in most Tp langua­

459
ges* Our typological claim wil l simply be that some langua­
ges can be m o r e insightfully described by taking the concept
of topic to be b a s i c , w hile others can be mo r e insightfully
described by taking the notion of subject as b a s i c . This is
due to the fact that m a n y structural phenomena of a language
can be explained on the basis of w h ether the basic structure
of its sentences is analyzed as s u b ject-predicate or topic-
comment•
According to a n umber of criteria w hich we will outline
below, and a small sample of languages w h ich we have investi­
gated, the following typological table m a y be e s t a b l i s h e d :

Subj ect-Prominent Topic-Prominent

Languages________ Languages________
Indo-European Chinese
Niger-Congo Lahu (Lolo-Burmese)
Tinno-Ugric L i s u (Lolo-Burmese)
Simitic
Dyirbal (Australian)
Indonesian
M alagasy

S ubject-Prominent and Neither Subj ect-Prominent

Topic-Prominent nor Topic-Prominent
Languages________ Languages
Japanese Tagalog
Korean Illocano

It is obvious that the above table touches on only a

very small number of languages in the world. This is partly
due to the fact that in order to establish t o p i c - p r o m i n e n c e ,
a careful investigation of the syntactic structures of a
language is necessary. Since the tradition in linguistic
studies emphasizes the subject as the b a s i c , universal g r a m ­
mat i c a l relation, grammarians tend to assume that sentences
of a language are na t u r a l l y structured in terms of s u b j e c t ，
object, and v e r b . In g e n e r a l ，it is not considered that the
basic structure of a sentence could be described in terms of
topic and comment (1). There are e x c e p t i o n s . 7 or example,
Schachter and Otanes (1972) stated that the Tagalog basic
sentence structure should not be described in terms of the
not i o n subject. Another example is E . Hope (1974) who has
described a remarkable Tp l a n g u a g e , Lisu, a Lolo-Burmese
l a n g u a g e . But in g e n e r a l , it is often difficult to determine
the typology of a language in terms of subject-prominence and
topic-prominence on the basis of reference grammars since
ma n y such grammars are biased toward the subject-predicate
a n a l y s i s . M o d e r n g e n erative linguistics does not represent
any advance in this p a r ticular area. The assumption remains
that the basic sentence structure should be universally des­
cribed in terms of s u b j e c t , o b j e c t , and verb. Our goal in
this paper is, t h e r e f o r e , a m o d e s t one: we wish to establish
the value and the v a l i d i t y of a typology based on the notions
of s u b j e c t -prominence and t o p i c - p r o m i n e n c e . We will proceed
as follows. F i r s t , we wil l outline the differences between
subjects and topics in terms of a number of properties which
they do not s h a r e ; then we wil l discuss some of the charac­
teristics of Tp l a n g u a g e s . W e wil l then show that the topic-
comment structure in Tp languages is indeed a basic sentence
type, and finally we w i l l exp l a i n the implications of the
typology for the study of u n i versal g r a m m a r .

II. Subject vs. T o p i c . (a) Definite. According to

Chafe (this v o l u m e ) , a definite nou n phrase is one for which
"I think y o u already kno w and can identify
the p a r ticular referent I have in m i n d . "
One of the p r i m a r y c h a r acteristics of t o p i c s , then, is that
they must be definite (2) (see C h a f e , this volume, for fur­
ther remarks on d e f i n i t e n e s s ) .
According to this c h a racterization of d e f i n i t e n e s s ,
proper and generic NPs are also understood as d e f i n i t e . The
conditions regarding the speaker rs assessment of the h e a r e r Ts
knowledge under w h i c h a proper nou n can be appropriately
used are the same as those under w h i c h a definite common
nou n phrase can be u s e d . A generic noun phrase is definite
because its referent is the class of items named by the noun
phrase, w h i c h the hearer can be assumed to kn o w about if he
knows the m e a n i n g of that n o u n phrase (3).
A s u b j e c t , on the other h a n d , need not be d e f i n i t e . For
e x a m p l e , the subjects of 3 and 4 are i n d e f i n i t e :
3 A couple of people have a r r i v e d .
4 A piece of pie is on the t a b l e .
(b) Selectional r e l a t i o n s . An important property of the
topic is that it nee d not have a selectional relation with
any ver b in a s e n t e n c e ; that is, it need not be an argument
of a p r e dicative c o n s t i t u e n t . This property of topic is

461
particularly n o t i ceable among the topic-prominent languages
since the topic-comment construction in such l a n g u a g e s , as we
will try to show, represents the basic sentence t y p e . Consi­
der sentences 5, 6 ，7 ，and 8 ，all of which represent cominon
sentence types in their respective l a n g u a g e s . The underlined
constituent in each sentence is the t o p i c .
5 he chi te p e ? o d a 7 ja (Lahu)
field this one classifier rice ver y good
"This field ( t o p i c ) , the rice is ver y good.
6 ho p n a - qh3 y± ve yo (Lahu)
elephant topic n ose long p r t . declarative
marker marker
"Elephants (topic ) ，noses are long
7 Nel-chang huo xingkui x iaofang-dui lai
t hat-classifier fire fortunate fire-brigade come
de kuai (Mandarin)
adv. particle quick
"That fire (topic ) ，fortunately the fire-brigade came
quickly."
8 N e i -xie shumu shu-shen da (Mandarin)
those tree tree-trunk big
"Those trees (topic) , the trunks are b i g . 11
The topics in these s e n t e n c e s , 5 "this f i eld," 6 "elephants /
7 "that f i r e , l? 8 "those t r e e s ，" have no selectional relation
with the v e r b s . Similarly, in Japanese, the topic marked by
the particle w a ，and in Korean, the topic marked by the par-
t i d e (n)±n need not be selectionally related to the verb of
the sentence, as shown in 9 and 10:
9 siban—±n hakkj o - ga manse (Korean)
n o w - topic school - subject many
marker mark e r
"The present time ( t opic), there are m a n y schools
10 Gakkoo - w a buku - ga isogasi-kat-ta (Japanese)
school 一 topic I - subject busy - past tense
m ark e r marker
"School ( t o p i c ) , I was b u s y . 1
The subject, on the other hand, always has a selectional
relation with some predicate in the s e n t e n c e . It is true
that the surface subject of some sentences may not be selec-
tionally related to the m a i n surface v e r b . For example,
classical transformational analyses (e . g . , Chomsky 1965;
Ro s e n b a u m 1967; Postal 1971; Postal and Ross 1971) recognize
the surface subject, "Joh n , " in the following sentences to be

462

i I
selectionally unrel a t e d to the m a i n predicates, "be easy:’and
"appear •,f
11 John is easy to please.
12 J ohn appears to be angry.
This fact, h o w e v e r , does not contradict our claim that the
subject of a sentence is always s electionally related to some
predicate in the s e n t e n c e . In the surface structure, the
subject m i g h t not be adjacent to the predicate to which it is
selectionally related, and it m i g h t even have assumed a new
grammatical relationship w i t h a v e r b to which it is not selec­
tionally related. But the fact remains that a selectional
relation m ust exist b e t w e e n the subject of a sentence and
some verb in that sentence (4 )，w h e r e a s no such relationship
need exist b e tween topic and verb (5)•
(c) Verb determines " S u b j e c t ” but not " T o p i c •丨
丨 A cor­
relate of the fact that a subject is s electionally related to
the verb is the fact that, w i t h certain q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , it is
possible to predict what the subject of any given verb will
be (6). T h u s , in English, if a verb occurs w ith an agent as
well as other noun p h r a s e s , the agent w i ll become the subject
unless a "special" construction is r esorted t o ，such as the
p a s s i v e . (This w ay of stating the fact about subjectivaliza-
tion is due to Fillmore, 1968:37.) If the verb is intransi­
tive, either the patient or the actor, depending on whether
the verb is a stative verb or an action v e r b , will be the
s u b j e c t . If the v erb is c a u s a t i v e , the causer will be the
subject. These facts represent some of the language-indepen-
dent generalizations about h o w the subject is determined by
the verb. There is no doubt that not all verbs in a language
can be classified with respect to subj ectivization on a lan­
guage-independent b a s i s . For e x a m p l e , in English, the verb
’’enjoy*1 w i l l take the experiencer but not the accusative as
the s u b j e c t , w h e reas the verb "please" w ill have the accusa­
tive n oun phrase but not the expe r i e n c e r as the s u b j e c t . But
the fact remains that given a v e r b , the subject is predic­
table .
The topic, on the other h a n d , is not determined by the
verb; topic selection is independent of the v e r b . Discourse
may play a role in the selection of the t o p i c , but within the
constraints of the discourse, the speaker still has consider­
able freedom in choosing a topic noun phrase regardless of
what the verb is. This characteristic of the topic is clear­
ly demonstrated by our earlier examples, 5 - 8 ，with topic-
cotnment s t r u c t u r e .
(d) Functional r o l e . The functional role of the topic
is constant across sentences; as Chafe (this volume) suggests:

463
 "What the topics appear to do is limit the
applicability of the m a i n predication to a
certain restricted d o m a i n . . . . The topic
sets a spatial, t e m p o r a l , or individual
framework w i t h i n wh i c h the m ain predication
holds."
Clearly, this function of specifying the domain w i thin which
the predication holds is related to the structure of the
discourse in wh i c h the sentence is f o u n d . The topic is the
"center of a t t e n t i o n " ; it announces the theme of the d i s ­
course. This is w hy the topic must be definite (see section
11(a) a b o v e ) . T he functional role of the topic as setting
the framework w i t h i n wh i c h the predication holds precludes
the possibility of an indefinite t o p i c . A feel for the
bizarreness of such a topic can be gained from considering
the impossibility of interpreting the following English sen-
tence: (0 i
13 *A dog, I gave some food to |it j yesterday.
Ione )
Looking at the functional role of the subject, on the
other hand, reveals two f a c t s . F i r s t , some NPs which can be
clearly identified as subjects do not play any semantic role
in the sentence at all; that i s ，in m a n y subject-prominent
l a n g u a g e s , sentences m a y occur w i t h "empty" or "dummy" sub­
jects (see section III(c) b e l o w ) . S e c o n d , in case the sub­
ject NP is not empty, the functional role of the subject can
be defined w i t h i n the confines of a sentence as opposed to a
discourse. According to M i c h a e l Noonan (personal conimunica-
t i o n )，the subject can be characterized as providing the o r ­
ientation or the point of v i e w of the action, e x p e r i e n c e ,
state, e t c . , denoted b y the v e r b . This difference in the
functional roles between the subject and the topic explains
the fact that the subject is always an argument of the v e r b ,
while the topic need not be (see section 11(b) a b o v e ) . The
explanation runs as f o l l o w s : if we are to v i e w the action,
e x p e r i e n c e , s t a t e , e t c ., denoted by the verb from the point
of v iew of an entity (or orient the description towards that
e n t i t y ) , the entity must be involved in the action, expe r i ­
ence or state, e t c . , and must therefore be an argument of the
v e r b . Thus w e see that the distinct functions of the topic
and the subject turn out to explain the differences between
them in definiteness and selectional r e l a t i o n s .
(e) V e r b - a g r e e m e n t , It is well known that the verb in
m a n y languages shows obligatory agreement wit h the subject of
a s e n t e n c e . T o p i c-predicate a g r e e m e n t , however, is very
rare, and w e k n o w of no language in wh i c h it is widespread or

464
 o b l i g a t o r y . The reason for this is quite straightforward:
t o p i c s , as we h ave seen, are m u c h m ore independent of their
comments than are subjects of their v e r b s . Evidence of this
independence can be found in the fact, discussed in section
11(a) and 1 1 ( c )，that the topic need not have any selectional
relationship to any verb and that the topic is not determined
by the v erb of the s e n t e n c e . Given this i n d e pendence, it is
to be expected that a constituent in the comment is not nor­
m a l l y mar k e d to agree w ith some grammatical property of the
topic. M o r p h o logical a g r e e m e n t , then, where some inherent
properties of the subject noun are represented by verbal
a f f i x e s , is a common kind of surface coding for subjects
(see E.L. Keenan, D e f i nition of S u b j e c t , this volume) (7).
(f) Sentence-initial p o s i t i o n . Although the surface
coding of the topic ma y involve sentence position as well as
morp h o l o g i c a l markers, it is w o r t h n o ting that the surface
coding of the topic in all the languages we have examined
always involve the sentence-initial p o s i t i o n . In Lisu, Japan­
ese, and Korean, the topic is obligat o rily codified by m o r ­
pheme m a r k e r s . In Lahu, the topic is optionally codified by
morpheme markers. But regardless of the m o r pheme markers,
the topic in these languages m ust remain in sentence-initial
position. S u b j e c t , on the other h a n d , is not confined to
the sentence-initial position. In M a l a g a s y and Chumash, for
example, the subject occurs in sentence-final position, while
Arabic and Jacaltec, for example, are VSO, The reason that
the topic but not the subject m ust b e in sentence-initial
position m a y be u n d e rstood in terms of discourse strategies.
Since speech involves s erialization of the information to be
co m m u n i c a t e d , it m a k e s sense that the topic, which repre­
sents the discourse t h e m e , should be introduced f i r s t . The
subject, being a m ore s e n t e n ce-oriented notion, need not
receive any priority in the s e r i a l ization p r o c e s s .
(g) Graimnatical p r o c e s s e s . The subject but not the
topic plays a prominent role in such processes as reflexivi-
zation, passivization, Equi-NP deletion, verb serialization,
and imperativization (see E.L. Keenan, Definition of Subject,
this v o l u m e ) . Thus the reflexive p r o n oun generally marks a
co-referential r e lation w i t h the subject of the s e n t e n c e ;
pas s i v ization m a y be v i e w e d , at least in p a r t , as a process
promoting the patient to the subjecthood; in Equi-NP dele­
tion, the deleted constituent in the complement is generally
the subject; verb serialization, w h i c h is found in the Niger-
Congo languages and the S i no-Tibetan l a n g u a g e s , involves the
concatenation of a series of v erb phrases wit h one identical
s u b j e c t ; the deleted second person m o r pheme in an imperative
sentence is always the subject. The reason that the topic is

465
 not involved in such grammatical processes is partially due
to the fact that the topic, as w e have shown earlier, is syn­
tactically independent of the rest of the s e n t e n c e . Reflexi-
vization, passivization, Equi-NP deletion, verb serialization,
e t c ” are concerned w i t h the internal syntactic structure of
s e n t e n c e s . Since the topic is syntactically independent in
the sentence, it is not surprising that it does not play a
role in the statement of these p r o c e s s e s .
To sum up this section on the differences between the
subject and the topic, w e note that seven criteria have been
established. These criteria are not intended to constitute a
definition of either notion, but are rather designed to serve
as guidelines for distinguishing the topic from the s u b j e c t .
We m a y single out three basic factors underlying these cri­
teria: discourse strategy, noun-verb relations, and grammati­
cal p r o c e s s e s . The subject has a minimal discourse function
in contrast w i t h the topic. Hence, the topic but not
necessarily the subject is d i s c o u r s e - d e p e n d e n t , serves as the
center of attention of the sentence, and m ust be d e f i n i t e .
As for noun-verb relations and grammatical processes, it is
the subject rather than the topic that figures prominently.
Thus, subject is normally determined by the v e r b , and is
selectionally related to the v e r b ; and the subject often
obligatorily controls verb a g r e e m e n t . These properties of
the subject are not shared by the t o p i c . In conclusion, the
topic is a discourse notion, whereas the subject is to a
greater extent a sentence-internal notion. The former can be
understood best in terms of the discourse and extra-sentential
c o n s i d e r a t i o n s ; the latter in terms of its functions w i thin
the sentence s t r u c t u r e .

Ill - Characteristics of Topic-Prominent L a n g u a g e s .

Having examined a number of properties of topics as opposed
to s u b j e c t s ，let us n o w turn to a discussion of some of the
grammatical implications of topic—prominence and subject-
prominence.
(a) Surface coding. In Tp languages, there w ill be a
surface coding for the topic, but not necessarily for the
s u b j e c t . For example, in Mandarin, the topic is always in
initial position; in L isu and Lahu, the topic is coded by a
morphological m a r k e r . In none of these languages is there
any surface coding for subject, though, as we have pointed
o u t , the subj ect notion can be identified as playing a role
in certain grammatical processes. In Japanese and Korean,
w h i c h are b oth Tp and Sp, there is a morpheme marking the
topic (wa and (n)in, respectively) as well as one marking the
subject (ga and ka, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) .

466

w I
 (b) The passive c o n s t r u c t i o n . The passive construc­
tion is common among Sp l a n g u a g e s . Among Tp languages, on
the other hand, pass l v i z a t i o n either does not occur at all
(e.g . , Lahu, L i s u ) , or appears as a mar ginal construction,
rarely used in speech (e.g., M a n d a r i n ) , or carries a special
meani n g (e.g., the ”a d v e r s i t y ’ ’passive in Japanese) (8). The
relative insignificance of the passive in Tp languages can be
explained as f o l l o w s : in Sp l a n g u a g e s , the notion of subject
is such a basic one that if a n o u n other than the one which a
given verb designates as its subject becomes the subject, the
verb m ust be m a r k e d to signal this ,Tn o n - n o r m a l M subject
choice. Fillmore states this requirement as follows for the
verb "give" in E n g l i s h :
"The ?normal* choice of subject for sentences
containing an A ( g e n t ) . . . is the A. The
verb give also allows either O(bject) or
D(ative) to appear as subject as long as this
’n o n - n o r m a l T choice is Tr e g i s t e r e d ! in the V,
This Tr e g i s t e r i n g 1 of a Tn o n - n o r m a l 1 subject
takes place v ia the a s s ociation of the feature
[+ passive] with the V . " (Fillraore, 1968:37)
In Tp l a n g u a g e s , it is the t o p i c , not the s u b j e c t ，that plays
a m o r e significant role in sentence construction. Any noun
phrase can be the topic of a sentence w i thout registering
anything on the verb. It i s ，therefore, natural that the
passive c o nstruction is not as wi d e s p r e a d in Tp languages as
it is in Sp l a n g u a g e s .
(c) "Durmnyn s u b j e c t s . "Dummy" or M em p t y M subjects,
such as the E n g lish and there, the German e s , the French
il and ce, m a y be found in an Sp language but not in a Tp
l a n g u a g e . This is b e cause in an Sp language a subject may be
needed w h e ther or not it plays a semantic role. Examples
from English include;
14 is r a i n i n g .
15 is hot in h e r e .
16 Lt is p ossible that the w a r w i l l e n d .
17 There is a cat in the garden.
In a Tp language, as w e have e m p h a s i z e d , where the no ­
tion of subject does not play a prominent role, there is no
need for ffduimny,f subjects. In cases where no subject is
called for, the sentence in a Tp language can simply do with­
out a subject. For example, the M a n d a r i n sentences corres­
ponding to 15-17 are respectively 18-20.

467
 18 Zher hen re (Mandarin)
here very hot
"It is hot in h e r e . "
19 Kenfeng zhe _ chang zhanzhen j iu - yao
possible this - c l a s s . w ar will soon
jiesu le (Mandarin)
end aspect
"It is possible that this w ar will soon e n d . ”
20 You yi — tiao mao zai huayuan-li (Mandarin)
exist one - c l a s s . cat at garden -in
"There is a cat in the g a r d e n .11
(d) "Double subject." Tp languages are famous for
their pervasive so-called "double subject" c o n s t r u c t i o n s . A
number of examples h a v e already occurred in our exposition.
Here are four more, each from a different l a n g u a g e :
21 Sakana w a tai____________ga oisii (Japanese)
fish t o p . red snapper s u b j . delicious
"Fish (topic) , red snapper is d e l i c i o u s .,?
22 Pihengki - n±n 747 - R 吞\ kh± ta (Korean)
airplane - t o p . - s u b j . big stative
"Airplanes (topic ) ，the 747 is b
/a g
d

23 Neike shu yezi (Mandarin)

b
i

that tree leaves

"That tree ( t op ic ), the leaves are big.
24 ho qhp ve yo (Lahu)
elephant top. nose long p r t , declar•
"Elephants (topic )，noses are long
Such sentences a r e , of c o u r s e , the clearest cases of
topic-comment s t r u c t u r e s . F i r s t , the topic and the subject
both occur and can thus be distinguished e a s i l y . Second, the
topic has no selectional relationship with the v e r b . T h i r d ,
no argument can be given that these sentences could be d e ­
rived by any kind of "moveraent'’rule from some other sentence
type. Fourth, all Tp languages have sentences of this type,
while no pure Sp languages d o ，as far as we know.
It has been suggested (Teng 1974) for Mandarin and by
Park (1973) for Korean that these sentences involve a "sen­
tential predicate." That a Mandarin sentence such as
25 Ta tou teng
he head ache
’•He has a he ad -a ch e .n
is analyzed by Teng (1974) as having the following s t r u c t u r e :
 tou teng
head ache
(p. A61, Figure 2)

Whi l e w e agree w i t h the spirit of this approach, we feel that

his analysis mak e s sense only if languages with "double sub-
ject" constructions are seen as T p . This is because in an Sp
language, a p r edicate cannot be a sentence. If it were a
sentence, it w o uld leave the subject grammatically "stranded,
as it were, w i t h nothing to be the subject of. Viewing such
constructions as composed of a topic and a c o m m e n t , h o w e v e r ,
involves no anomaly since sentential comments are quite na­
tural, given the grammatical independence of the topic from
the rest of the sentence (9).
The pervasiveness of the "double subject1’construction,
t h e n , is a significant feature of Tp languages (10), In sec­
tion I V ( d ) , w e will consider the b a sicness of "double sub-
ject" sentences in more d e t a i l .
(e) Controlling c o - r e f e r e n c e . In a Tp l a n g u a g e , the
topic, and not the subject, typically controls co-referential
constituent deletion (11). Some examples from Mandarin in­
clude : \
27 Neike shu yezi da, suoyi wo bu xihuan 丄 _
that tree leaves big so I not like
"That tree ( t o p i c ) , the leaves are b i g ，so I d o n ’
t
like i t ■n
The deleted object in the second clause can only be under­
stood to refer to the topic "that tree," and not to the sub­
ject " l e a v e s .M
28 Nei kuai tian daozi zhangde hen da,
that piece land rice grow very big
suoyi _________ hen zhiqian.
so very valuable
"That piece of land (to p i c ) , rice grows very big, so
it (the land) is very v a l u a b l e . ”
Similarly, the deleted constituent in 28 refers to the topic

469
"that piece of land," and not to the subject "rice."
Sentence 29 illustrates a case in which the subject
"fire brigade" cannot control the d eletion in the second
clause, and the topic "that fire" is incompatible wit h that
c l a u s e , so it is i n c o h e r e n t :
29 Nei chang huo x i aofangdui laide zao，
that classifier fire fire brigade came early
(*)suoyi ___ hen lei
so v ery tired
"That fire ( t o p i c ) , the fire brigade came e a r l y ，so
t h e y Tre v e r y tired."
The point w e are maki n g is that in a Tp l a n g u a g e , the
topic takes precedence over the subject in controlling co-
reference (12).
(f) V-final l a n g u a g e s . Tp languages tend to be verb-
final l a n g u a g e s , as has been pointed out by Hsieh Hsin-I and
W.P. Lehmann (personal coimnunication). Japanese, K o r e a n ,
Lisu, and Lahu are m a t u r e and indisputable verb-final langua­
ges, and Chinese, as we h ave argued elsewhere (see Li and
Thompson 1974a and 1974b) is in the process of becoming o n e .
In the final section, we w i l l suggest a possible explanation
for this f a c t .
(g) Constraints on topic c o n s t i t u e n t . In certain Sp
l a n g u a g e s , the topic-comment type of sentence is highly con­
strained in terms of w hat can serve as the topic constitu­
ent . Indonesian, for i n s t a n c e , only allows the surface sub­
ject constituent and the genitive of the surface subject con­
stituent to be the topic (13)• Consider sentence 30, a
simple s u bject-predicate construction in I n d o n e s i a n ，
30 Ibu anak itu m e mbeli sepatu (Indonesian)
m o t h e r child that bu y shoe
"That c h i l d Ts m o t h e r bought shoes -"
where the subject is ibu anak itu "that c h i l d 1s mother The
entire subject m a y be the topic:
31 Ibu anak itu ，dia m e m b e l i sepatu (Indonesian)
mother child that ，she buy shoe
s mother, she bought shoes."
"That c h i l d ’
The genitive of the subject, anak itu "that child," m a y also
be the topic:
32 Anak itu ，ibu - nja m e m b e l i sepatu (Indonesian)
child that ，moth e r - p o s s . buy shoe
suffix
"That c h i l d ，his m o t h e r bought s h oes-’ ’

470

K I
However, if the object n oun p h r a s e , sepatu "shoe," of sen­
tence 30 is the topic, the sentence is ungrammatical:
33 *Sepatu itu ，ibu anak itu membeli (Indonesian)
shoe that , m o t h e r child that buy
In topic-prominent l a n g u a g e s , on the other h a n d ，there
are no constraints on what ma y be the t o p i c ,
(h) Basicness of topic-comment s e n t e n c e s , Perhaps the
most striking difference b e tween a Tp language and a non-Tp
language is the extent to wh i c h the topic-comment sentence
can be considered to be part of the repertoire of basic sen­
tence types in the former but not in the l a t t e r . In the next
section w e w i l l provide evidence for the basicness of topic-
comment sentences in Tp l a n g u a g e s .
To summarize this section, we h ave brought out a number
of distinguishing characteristics of Tp languages. In these
l a n g u a g e s , topics are coded in the surface structure and they
tend to control c o - r e f e r e n t i a l i t y ; the topic-oriented "double
subject" construction is a basic sentence type, while such
subject-oriented constructions as the p assive and "dummy"
subject sentences are rare or n o n - e x i s t e n t ,

IV. On the Basicness of Topic-Comment Sentences in Tp

L a n g u a g e s . Our aim in this section w i l l be to show that
topic-comment structures in Tp languages cannot be viewed as
being derived from any other sentence t y p e .
We wo u l d like to m a k e it quite clear that we are not
arguing against any p a r t icular formulation according to which
such a d e rivational relationship mi g h t be e s t a b l i s h e d ; rather
we are arguing against the de s i r a b i l i t y in principle of view­
ing topic-comment sentences as derivative, marginal, m a r k e d ,
or otherwise u n usual sentence types in these l a n g u a g e s . That
is, w e are not saying that some generative apparatus could
not be imagined w h i c h w o u l d "handle" the cases we are about
to p r e s e n t . Our claim is that the data wh i c h these Tp lan­
guages present are most natur a l l y accounted for by taking the
topic-comment sentences to be basic and not derived,
(a) On the n o t i o n "basic s e n t e n c e ," E.L, Keenan (Defi­
ni tio n of Subject, this v o l u m e ) , In discussing the definition
of "subject," offers a definition of "basic" s e n t e n c e :
M i) a sentence A is m o r e b a s i c than a sentence B
if, and only if, the syntactic form and the
me a n i n g of B are u n d e r s t o o d as a function of
those of A. (E . g . , the f orm of B is some m o d i ­
fication [possibly addition to] that of A, and
the m e a n i n g of B is some m o d i fication of that
of A , )

471
 ,?ii) a sentence is a basic sentence in L if and
only if no other sentence of L is m o r e basic
than it."
According to both of these criteria, topic-corament sentences
in Tp languages are b a s i c . There are no sentences m o r e basic
than they in terms of w h i c h their meaning or form can be spe­
cified.
(b) Lisu. The clearest data supporting this claim can
be found in Lisu, a Tp language described in Hope ( 1 9 7 4 ) f Our
data will be taken f r o m this w o r k and his response to our
inquiry about a n umber of Lisu constructions while he was
doing field w o r k in T h a i l a n d . In Lisu, as we will endeavor
to show, even the grammatical relations Agent and Patient
cannot be i d e n t i f i e d . T h u s , there is no wa y to identify the
notion of subject. It is c l e a r , then, that in Lisu, there is
simply no subject-predicate sentence form from which the
topic-comment sentences could be said to be d e r i v e d .
(1) Grammatical r e l a t i o n s . The sentence word order in
Lisu is v e r b - f i n a l . If there is m o r e than one noun phrase
preceding a verb, then the sentence is normally ambiguous as
to whi c h noun phrase represents the agent or the actor and
which noun phrase represents the patient. The structure of a
simple declarative sentence w i t h a transitive verb w i l l only
indicate w h i c h noun phrase is the topic but not w h ich noun
phrase is the a g e n t . Sentences 34 and 35 are typical simple
declarative sentences in Lisu.
34 lathyu n ya ana khu a
people topic dog bite — declarative
marker m a rker

"People ( t o p i c ) ⑩ S ?!-： ：
uogs Dite t n e m .
35 ana nya lathyu k hu - a
dog topic people bite - declarative
marker m arker

”Dogs (to p i o

Sentences 34 and 35 are equally ambiguous as far as agency is

concerned. Both sentences m a y m e a n either people bite dogs
or doss bite p e o p l e ■ The two sentences are different only in
terms of the t o p i c . In 34, lathyu "people” is the t o p i c ,
whereas in 35 ana "dog" is the t o p i c . One may wonder if a
language such as Lisu, w h ich completely neglects the codifi­
cation of agency or subjecthood would give rise to communica­
tion problems.. Of course, there are sentences whi c h are
a m b i g u o u s , such as 36: .
36 lama nya ana kyu - a
tiger topic dog bite - declarative
marker marker
,Irr. “ • 、 /they bite dogs."
Tlgers ( t o p l c ) > {dogs bite them."
The fact is, however, that this total disregard for agency or
subj ecthood in the structure of the language does not impair
its communicative f u n c t i o n , as m u c h as might be e x p e c t e d .
First of all, the c o n t e x t , whe t h e r linguistic or extra-lin­
guistic , provides a great number of semantic c u e s . Secondly,
semantic properties such as humanness and animacy play a sig­
nificant role in disambiguating sentences which ma y be other­
wise ambiguous bec a u s e of the lack of any indication of
agency or subjecthood. In terms of p r a g m a t i c s , one may safely
assume that w h e n one hears either 34 or 3 5 ，the intended m e a n ­
ing w o uld be dogs bite p e o p l e ，since people are normally not
expected to bite other c r e a t u r e s . T h u s , although 34 and 35
are theoretically a m b i g u o u s , they do not present a ccmmtunica-
tion pro b l e m in most c i r c u m s t a n c e s . But the structure of the
Lisu verb system also serves to m i n i m i z e the potential ambi­
guity. For e x a m p l e , let us contrast the Lisu verb thywu
"burn" w i t h the English verb burn. A l t hough both verbs share
a great deal in m e a n i n g , there is a significant semantic dif­
ference between them. The Lisu verb thywu implies that what
is b e ing burnt must be i n a n i m a t e . The English verb burn does
not have such a selectional restriction. T h u s , the Lisu sen­
tence 3 7 ，whose English translation is a c c e p t a b l e , is ungram­
ma ti c a l :
37 *lathyu gu nya ana thywu - a
p erson that topic dog b u r n - declarative
marker marker
"That p erson b urned the dog."
Instead, a causative construction wou l d have to be used to
express this proposition.
Consider another Lisu verb sye "kill." Although it
shares most of the mea n i n g of the English verb k i l l ，it has
very different selectional p r o p e r t i e s . The Lisu verb sye
obligatorily co-occurs w i t h the noun yi-pg ,!an end/' but need
not occur w i t h a patient noun w h i c h is selectionally required
by the English verb, kill. Sentence 38 illustrates the usage
of s y ^ "kill. M

473
 38 asa nya yf-ps sye - a
asa topic end kiTl - declarative
marker ma r ker
f,A sa killed and ar end res u l t e d.,!
To further demonstrate that Agent and Patient are not
systematically distinct in the grammar of Lisu, and h e n c e ,
that there is no possibility of identifying the subject in
Lisu s e n t e n c e s , we w o uld like to cite some additional data.
39 lathyu nya aya ami khwa - a mu -
people topic buffalo field hoe - d e c l . see - d e c l .
marker marker marker
they saw the buffaloes hoeing
the field.”
’
The people (topic)
the buffaloes saw them hoeing
the field."
40 Sya nya lathyu ami khwa 一 a mu - a
buffalo topic people field hoe _ d e c l . see - d e c l ■
m arker marker marker
they saw the people hoeing
the field."
fThe buffaloes ( t o p i c ) ,
the people saw them hoeing
the field.M
41 ami n ya aya lathyu khwa - a rau - a
field topic buffalo people hoe - decl. see - d e c l .
m a rker marker marker

I
the buffaloes saw the people
hoeing i t ."
'The field (topic)
the people saw the buffaloes
hoeing i t ,
42 ana nya laraa dza hi - a
dog topic tiger eat difficult - d e c l .
m arker marker
they are difficult for tigers eat."
"Dogs (topic )，
tigers are difficult for them e a t ."
43 lama nya ana dza hi - a
tiger topic dog eat difficult — d e c l .
marker marker
„. . • 、 /they are difficult for dogs to e a t .M
Tlgers (t0plC)’ {dogs are difficult for them to eat."
 44 ana n yJ a lama dza n i syi
r—s
- r—
as »
dog topic tiger eat want - decl.
marker m arker
. . 、 rtigers want to eat them.1*
Dogs (topxc), (they want t0 eat t l g e r s ."

45 lama nya ana dza nisy^i - a

tiger topic dog eat want - decl.
marker m arker
llrn. . • 、 rdogs want to eat them.M
Tlgers (top l c ) > {they want to eat dogs."
These Lisu sentences clearly show that neither word order nor
morp h o l o g y allows a grammatical distinction to be made be­
tween nouns in different relationships with the verb, and
that there is, therefore, no identifiable subject in the sen­
tence structure of this language.
(2) Reflexive. In the Thailand dialect of Lisu, the
reflexive consists of a construction w h i c h is either of the
form repeating the co-referential NP m e a n i n g literally N F Ts
body or of the form m e a n i n g his b o d y where a pronoun is being
used.
46 lama nya
j
lama kud w e ■ k hu
- — ■一. 一- »— »
一 •a\
tiger topic tiger body bite decl.
marker ma r k e r
"The tiger ( t o p i c ) , he bit his b o d y .n
47 lama nya yx kudwe khu - a
tiger topic he body bite decl.
marker m arker
"The tiger ( t o p i c ) , he bit his body (i.e., himself)
48 lama kudwe nya lama k hu
---------------------------- •-- V
- I--a'
tiger body topic tiger bite decl.
marker m arker
MHis body (topic )，the tiger bit it."
49 yi kudwe nya lama kyu - a
he body topic tiger bite decl.
marker marker
"His body (topic ) ，the tiger bit it."
(3) Co-ordination. The coordination marker in Lisu is
ce. If several topic n o u n phrases are conjoined, ce_ is used
to replace one or all of the topic mar k ers nya.

475
 51 lathyu ce lama nya ana khu - a
people co-ord tiger topic dog bite cf?cl.
m arker ma r k e r
they bite d o g s .n
"People and tigers (topic )，{
dogs bite them. ”
52 lathyu n ya lama ce ana khu - a
people topic tiger co-ord dog bite decl.
m a rker marker

a. "People and tigers (topic) , = thm'."

, i & j 、 rthey bite dogs and t i g ers."

b- People (topic)，{dogs and tigers bite them."
Again the above examples indicate that co-ordination does not
involve any n otion of subject. The two readings of 52 do
indicate that c o-ordination in Lisu follows the general con­
straint that the conjoined constituents should be semanti­
cally and syntactically parallel. (See Schachter 1974.)
Hence, although 51 is ambiguous as far as the agent of biting
is concerned, the conjoined N P s , lathyu "people" and lama
"tiger" must have the same semantic role with respect to the
action of biting. Sentence 52 is four-way a m b i g u o u s . H o w ­
ever, the (a) readings are related to a surface structure in
whi c h lathyu "people" and lama "tiger" are conjoined topics
and in whi c h the c o-ordination m a r k er has replaced the
topic m a r k e r nya, of the second t o p i c , lama " t iger." The (b)
r e a d i n g s , on the other hand, have a surface structure in which
only the NP, lathyu "people," is the t o p i c , and the co-ordina-
tion m a r k e r conjoins the other two N P s , lama "tiger" and
ana "dog," wh ich are not t o p i c s . These examples show that
the n otion of subject does not play any role in the structure
of compound sentences in Lisu.
The L i s u examples presented above demonstrate that the
syntactic relation of a noun phrase to the verb in a sentence
is i n d e t e r m i n a t e , and that the n otion of subject Is quite
irrelevant in the d e s c ription of the sentences of this lan­
guage. The only relevant n otion in the syntactic structure
of Lisu sentences is the topic, w h i ch is always marked by the
m o r p h e m e n ya and occupies the sentence initial position.
It might be suggested that Lisu is actually closer to
being a subj ect-prominent language than we have m a d e it out
to be. Recall t h a t , as ment i o n e d in footnote 2 ，nya does
appear as a marker in sentences containing no presupposed
n o u n phrases such a s :

476
 53 swu n ya atha d? - a „
one topic forge knife - d e c l ,
marker marker
"Someone is forging a k n i f e . n
Recall also that the rule g o verning the appearance of nya in
such sentences is that it goes w i t h the agent if there is o n e ,
w i t h the dative if there is no a g e n t , with the object if
there is no dative, and w i t h the instrumental if there is no
dative. N o w we might say that this function of nya is a
subject-marking function since some noun phrase is being
singled out not according to its case r o l e , but according to
a h i erarchy that is typically invoked for subject-prominent
languages -
In support of our claim that Lisu is essentially a
topic-prominent language, h o w e v e r , we want to point out that
this apparently subject-oriented n y a —marking mechanism is
restricted to sentences involving n o presupposed noun phra­
ses , which are extremely rare in actual language use. Even
a superficial study of discourse shows that coinmunication
typically involves some noun phrase whose referent is assumed
by the speaker to be known to the hearer. Since this subject-
m a r k i n g function of n ya occurs only in this relatively rare
sentence t y p e , and since the n o t i o n of subject seems to play
no other role in the grammar of Lisu, then, we claim that the
basic sentence structure is t o p i c - c o m m e n t , with no candidates
for any source from whi c h it can be said to be d e r i v e d .
(c) M a n d a r i n . We are not the first to suggest that
M a n d a r i n Chinese is a Tp language. Hong (1956 )，Householder
and Cheng (1967 )，Tai (1973 ) ，H u ang (1973 ) ，and Alleton
(1973) men t i o n the idea, and Chao (1968:67-104) discusses the
Topic-Comment concept at some length. It is important to
n o t e t h a t , although he uses the terms subject and predicate
t h r o u g h o u t , w e can interpret these terras as topic and comment.
That this is his intention can be seen from the following re­
mark:
"The gratranatical m e a n i n g of subject and predi­
cate in a Chinese sentence is topic and c o m ment,
rather than actor and action." (p. 69)
W h a t we are interested i n ，of c o u r s e , is the distinction be­
tween topic and subject and its implications for the estab­
lishment of a linguistic typology.
Now, unlike Lisu, M a n d a r i n does have structures that
could be called subject-predicate s e n t e n c e s . Tor example,
53 Wode didi x ihuan chi pingguo
ray bro t h e r like eat apple
’’
My brother likes to eat a p p l e s .M

477
n this example, the w o r d order parallels that of its English
ranslation. F r o m examples of this t y p e , one could conclude
hat Man d a r i n is, like English, a Sp language with the sub-
ect in initial position. In addition, although we are des-
ribing Man d a ri n as Tp, as indicated earlier, the notion of
ubject clearly plays a role in certain sentence structures -
or example, the serial v e r b construction m ust be described
s a sequence of predicates sharing the same s u b j e c t :
54 Zhang-san m ai le piao jinqu
Zhang-san buy asp. ticket go in
and went i n .
"Zhang-san bought a ticket {
to go in."
erial verb s e n t e n c e s , as w e described them in Li and Thomp-
on (1973 ) ，m a y generally be interpreted as expressing either
urpose or actions wh i c h are c o n s e c u t i v e , s i m u l t a n e o u s , or
l t e m a t i n g . We can s how that the notion of subject mus t be
eferred to in an account of this construction by giving an
xample in w h i c h the n o u n shared by the two predicates is an
gent of one and an e x p eriencer of the other. That is, serial
erb sentences cannot be described by simply referring to the
gent of the two p r e d i c a t e s :
55 Wo hu a le gian xiang shou
I spend aspect money enjoy
flT rand had a good t i m e .n
I spent mo n e y i , . , 』 , "
to nave a good time.
Furthermore, 56-59 illustrate that the subject m a y con-
rol reflexivization.
56 J ohn xihu a n ta - ziji
like he 一 self
"John likes h i m s e l f . 11
57 John da ta - ziji
hit he - self
"John hit h i m s e l f ."
58 John shi ta - zxj i de pengyou
is he - self genitive friend
"John is his own friend."
59 *John, wo x i h u a n ta - zij i
I like he self
*?,J ohn (topic) I like h i m s e l f . ,?
entence 59 shows that w h e n the sentence contains a topic
rhich can be distinguished from what one might want to call
he subject, this topic does not control r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n .

478

K I
T h u s , the grammar of M a n d a r i n must refer to the subject, to
describe the process of reflexi v i z a t i on (see E.L, Keenan,
De f inition of Subject, this v o l u m e ) . However, even for M a n ­
darin, the evidence against c o n sidering topic-comment senten­
ces to be derived from sentences of a subject-predicate form
is very strong. Thus m a n y nor m a l topic-comment sentences
whose topics have no selectional relationship with the verb
in the comment h ave no s u b j e c t-predicate s o u r c e s . Following
are some examples of this t y p e .
60 Huang — se de tu-di daf en zui b^shi
yel l o w - color relative soil manure most suitable
clause
marker
"The yell o w soil (topic ) ，m a n u r e is most s u i t a b l e •*
61 N ei - zuo fangzi x i n g kui qii - nian
that - classifier house fortunate last - year
me i x i a xue
not snow
"That house ( t o p i c ) , fort u n a t e l y it didn't snow last
year.M
62 Dongwu wo zuzhang bao - shou zhengce
animal I advocate c o nservation policy
"Animals ( t o p i c ) , I advocate a conservation policy.'
63 Zei - jian shiqing ni bu neng guang
this - classifier matter you not can only
mafan yi-ge ren
bother one person
"This matt e r ( t o p i c ) , y o u c a n 1 just bother one person."
The pervasiveness of sentences of this type provides very-
clear evidence against a process of topicalization.
In addition, the subject is not systematically codified
in the surface structure of M a n d a r i n sentences. There is
simply no noun phrase in M a n d a r i n sentences which has what
E.L. Keen a n has termed "subject p r o p e r t i e s 11 (Definition of
Subject, this v o l u m e ) • This m e a n s that a noun phrase which
one might w ant to defend as a subject is impossible to iden­
tify as such. As a case in p o i n t , let us look briefly at a
certain construction wh i c h w e think provides a clear illus­
tration of the difference b e t w e e n Sp and Tp l a n g u a g e s . We
can call this c o nstruction the " p s e u d o - p a s s i v e .M Here are
two e x a m p l e s :

479
 64 Zhei - jian x i n w e n guangbo le
This - classifier news broadcast aspect
"This news ( t o p i c ) , it has b e e n b r o a d c a s t .M
65 N e i - ben shu yij ing chuban le
That - classifier b o o k already publish aspect
"That b o o k ( t o p i c ) , it has already been published.*
Because the initial nou n is in an object case relationship
w i t h the ver b (see F i l l m o r e 1 9 6 8 ) ， one might try to claim
that such sentences are actually p a s s i v e s .
A similar sentence type exists in Bahasa Indonesia, as
described by S. C h ung (this v o l u m e ) . She shows that a sen­
tence w h i c h is s u p e r ficially an object topicalization is
actually a passive because the fronted object noun can be
shown to be f u nctioning as a s u b j e c t . A demonstration of
this sort cannot be given for sentences such as 64 and 65 in
M a n d a r i n because, e xcept as n oted above, there seem to be no
processes w h i c h refer to subject and no surface clues by
w h i c h a subject could be identified (14)•
(d) The "double subject" construction. The "double
subject" s e n t e n c e s , as we have suggested (see a b o v e , Section
111(d)), are pr o t o t y p i c a l topic-comment sentences. They are
wid e s p r e a d in C h i n e s e , Japanese, Korean, Lisu, and Lahu. If
we can show that such sentences are not d e r i v e d , then we will
have given ver y strong support for our case. Precisely the
same arguments against deriv i n g the "double subject" senten­
ces from any other sentence type hold for all the Tp langua­
ges w e have e x a m i n e d .
The only source w h i c h h a s , to our k n o w l e d g e , ever been
suggested for the "double subject'1 sentence is a subject-
predicate type of sentence in w hich there is a genitive rela­
tionship expressed bet w e e n and N P 2 . T h u s , for K o r e a n , we
could say that 66 w a s related to 67:
66 John — in m s l i - ka aphi - ta
topic hea d subj. sick stative
"John has a h e a d a c h e ."
67 John - ±i m a l i 一 ka aphi - ta
gen. hea d subj. sick stative
" J o h n 1s head a c h e s . M
Or, for Mandarin, w e could say that 68 should be derived from
69:
68 Xiang blzi chang
elephant nos e long
"Elephants hav e long noses -11

480
 69 X iang de bizi chang
elephant gen. nos e long ‘
" E l e p h a n t s f noses are l o n g . 11
However, as pointed out in Yan g (1972) and Teng (1974), there
are ma n y "double subject" sentences in w hich there are no
genitive or p a r t itive r elationships b e t ween the two initial
noun phrases. Examples i n c l u d e :
70 TV - in Z enith - ka tintin - ha - ta (Korean)
strong stative
”The TV (to p i c ) , Z enith is d u r a b l e •”
71 T amen shei dou bu lai (Mandarin)
they anyone all not come
"They ( t o p i c ) , none of them are coming."
T h u s , a genitive relationship only exists for a subset of
"double subject" s e n t e n c e s . T h ere is no gain, then in vi e w ­
ing such sentences as being derived from subject-predicate
sentences w i t h genitive phrases as subjects.
Even in those cases in w h i c h a genitive relationship
between the two n o u n phrases can be maintained, though nothing
w ould be gained by postu l a t i n g a derivation of "double sub­
j e c t ” sentences fro m genitive subject s e n t e n c e s . This is be­
cause a " r e - i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ’
' w ould have to be claimed to have
occurred in order to account for the fact t h a t , in Mandarin
at l e a s t , these two sentence types control co-referential
n o u n phrase d e l e t i o n d i f f e r e n t l y . Compare 72 and 73:
72 N eike shu de yezi tai da, suoyi wo bu
that tree 1s leaves too big so I not
x ihuan
like
"That t r e e ’
s leaves are too big, so I d o n 1rt like them
73 N eike shu yezi tai da, suoyi wo bu
that tree leaves too big so I not
xi h u a n _________
like
"That tree (topic ) ，the leaves are too b i g , so I d o n ft
like i t . n
In 72 the controller of the inter p r e tation of the deleted
constituent in the second clause is the subject "that t r e e ’ s
leaves," w h ile in 73 the controller is the topic "that tree."
Deriv i n g 73 from 72 thus does not appear to be i n d i cated.
Teng (1974) presents a n umber of o ther arguments against such
a derivation.

481
 (e) Distribution. We hope to have shown that there is
10 reason to v i e w topic-comment sentences in Tp languages as
'•marked" or o t h erwise special. H o w e v e r , it has been sugges­
ted to us that perhaps such sentences are more restricted in
their di s t r i b u t i o n than other sentence types, in particular
that they m a y not occur as freely in restrictive relative
clauses and n on-asserted complements (15). But in f a c t , this
is not the case. We present the following examples from
Mandarin w h i c h show that clauses w hich mu s t be analyzed as
topic-comment structures can be embedded as restrictive re l a ­
tive clauses and as no n - a s s e r t e d c o m p l e m e n t s . f i r s t ，a rela­
tive clause s t r u c t u r e :
74 Wo bu xihuan nei zhong yi j in sanshi
I not like that kind one catty 30
kua i - gian de dSuzi
dollars rel. beans
ma r k e r
"I d o n Tt like that kind of beans that costs 30 dollars
a catty.n
The source sentence for the u n d erlined relative clause is:
75 Nei zhong douzi yi jxn sanshi kuai - gian
that kind beans one catty 30 dollars
"That kind of beans (topic) one catty is 30 dollars."
which clearly cannot be analyzed as a subject-predicate con­
struction. Here is another relative clause e x a m p l e :
76 N e i - ke____________yezi____ he n da de shu
that - classifier leaves v e r y big rel. marker tree
feichang gao
u nusual tall
"That tree wit h big leaves is exceptionally tall."
Once again, the sentence u n derlying the underlined relative
clause could not be claimed to be a subject-predicate con­
struction:
77 Nei 一ke shu yezi hen da
that - classifier tree leaves ve r y big
"That tree (topic) the leaves are v e r y b i g . M
We can also easily show that topic-contraent sentences
can be embedded as p r esupposed c o m p l e m e n t s . Here is one ex­
ample :

482

r I
 78 Wo f andui tamen shei dou bu iSi •
I oppose they anyone all not come
”1 oppose the fact that non e of them are coining,n
The underlined c o m p l e m e n t , once a g a i n , can only be a topic-
comment c l a u s e .
What examples 74-78 show, then, is that it is not the
case that topic-comment sentences in a Tp language are neces­
sarily restricted to asserted c l a u s e s . T h u s , the argument
that such sentences are m o r e "marked" because of this more
limited distrib u t i o n can be seen to have no empirical b a s i s .
What we have tried to do in this section is to argue
that the topic function, w h ich is h ighly marked and set off
from the rest of the sentence in Sp l a n g u a g e s , has in Tp lan­
guages bee n integrated into the b asic syntax of the s entence.
The topic n o t i o n m u s t be reckoned wit h in constructing an
adequate g r ammatical descr i p t i o n of these l a n g u a g e s , and
topic-comment sentences mu s t be counted among the basic sen­
tence types prov i d e d by the language.

V. The Typology and Some Diachronic I m p l ications. We

have presented evidence in favor of a typological distinction
bet w e e n languages in w h i c h the n o t i o n of topic plays a promi­
nent role as opposed to those in w h i c h the notion of subject
plays a prominent role. As w i t h all typological distinctions,
of course, it is clear that w e are speaking of a continuum.
T h u s , Lisu, as w e have seen, is m o r e Tp than M a n d a r i n . Phil­
ippine l a n g u a g e s , as suggested by Schachter (this volume)
seem to be n e i t h e r hi g h l y Sp nor highly Tp, while Japanese
and K orean could be described as b o t h Sp and Tp. Malagasy,
as described by E . L . Ke e n a n ( M a l a g a s y ，this v o l u m e ), seems to
be less Sp than English d o e s . These facts can be sche­
ma t i c a l l y represented as f o l l o w s :
Korean, Japanese
,' \
/ 、
Z \

Z 、'
z \
z 、
z \
Tp Sp
L isu Chinese, P h i lippine Malagasy English,
L ah u French,
Twi,
Indonesian

483
 O n the basis of s y n c h r o n i c as w e l l as d i a chronic phe-
mena, it seems clear that subject and topic are not un r e -
ted notions. Subjects are e s s e n t ially g r ammaticalized
pics; in the process of b e i n g i n tegrated into the case
I ame of the v e r b (at w h i c h po i n t we call t h e m s u b j e c t s ) ,
pics b e c o m e somewhat i m p u r e , and certain of their topic
operties are w e a k e n e d , but their topic-ness is still recog-
zable (16). That is w h y m a n y of the topic prop e r t i e s are
ared b y subjects in a n u m b e r of languages. F o r example,
line Sp languages do not al l o w i n d efinite subjects.
What w e are p r o p o s i n g he r e is that the uni v e r s a l notion
: topic m a y be m a n i f e s t e d In dif f e rent w a y s across l a n g u a g e s .
i some languages, such as L i s u and M a n d a r i n , the topic pro-
?rties are coded in a topic c o n s t i t u e n t , and topic-comment
Bntences figure among the b a s i c sentence structures of these
mguages. In other l a n g u a g e s , such as M a l a g a s y (see E.L.
ienan, Malagasy, this v o l u m e ) , some topic properties are
arried b y the subject, the cons t i t uent w h i c h is graramatical-
/ closely r elated to the v e r b and w h i c h plays a m a j o r role
i the d e s c r i p t i o n of a n u m b e r of g ramm a t i c a l processes. In
ach l a n g u a g e s , to express u n a m b i g u o u s l y the topic as the
iscourse theme involves a s eparate propo s i t i o n w h o s e only
anction is topic e s t a b l i s h m e n t . In E n g l i s h ，for e x a m p l e , we
ight do it this way:

79 IRememberj Tom? Well, he fell off his bike yesterday.

Yo u kn o w
n t e r e s t i n g l y , this s trategy is v e r y commonly used by English-
pe a k i n g chi l d r e n (see E.O. K e e n a n and B.B. Schieffelin, this
olume) and by users of A m e r i c a n Sign L a n g u a g e (see L. Frie d -
lan, this volume). In topi c - p r o m i n ent l a n g u a g e s , on the
>ther hand, t o p i c - e s t a b l i s h m e n t is built into the syntactic
■tructure of the sentence. The diff erences b e t w e e n the two
:ypes of languages can ha v e p r o f o u n d s t ructural i m p l i c a t i o n s ,
is w e h a v e tried to show.
On the basis of the c r o s s - l i n g u i s t i c evidence w e have
)resented, w e suggest the d i a c h r o n i c sche m a shown on the next
>age.
To return to the que s t i o n raised earlier as to w h y the
Cp languages are o v e r w h e l m i n g l y v e r b-final, w e offer the fol­
lowing speculation: in p r o p e l l i n g a language from stage (C)
through stage (D) and then to stage (A ) ，the sentence type
that plays a m a j o r role is the "double subject" type of sen­
tence. The mo r e such s e ntences are used in the language, the
closer the language comes to stage (A), since these are topic-
coiranent structures par excellence. N o w note that the "double
subject" constructions are always of the form:

484
 IE
(A) topic n o t i o n int e grated
into b a s i c s entence struc­
ture; topic and subj ect
d istinct

(D) B o t h Tp and Sp (B) N e i ther Tp nor Sp

topic sentences bec o m e topic becomes more clo­
less m a r k e d , m o r e sely integrated into case
ba s i c frame of verb

se

(D) topic has b e c o m e i n t e ­

grated into case frame of
ve r b as a s u b j e c t ; subject
and topic often i n d i s t i n c t ,
s ubjects h a v i n g some n o n ­
topic p r o p e r t i e s ; sentences
w i t h clear topics are
h i g h l y ma r k e d

80 NP1 np2

topic comment
w h i c h is p r e c i s e l y the typical sen t e nce structure of a verb-
final language. This s entence type becomes pervasive as the
r e l a t i o n s h i p bet w e e n N P 工 and NP? b e c omes less and less con­
str a i n e d .
In conclusion, w e h o p e to h a v e p o i nted to a n e w arena
to obs e r v e the e n actment of a fam i l i ar d r a m a : a synchronic
typ o l o g y is shown to be simply a slice of a diachronic cycle
in w h i c h d i fferent languages are caught at v a r ious s t a g e s .
In our search for ling u i s t i c u n i v e r s a l s , w e are reminded that
a typ o l o g y is really a d e s c r i p t i o n of strategies for accoinp-
lishing the same c o m m u n i c a t i v e g o a l s .

485
 Notes

1. Thus D ixon (1972) makes the strong claim that "Each

natural language is either strictly n o m i n a t i v e - a c c u s a t i v e , or
strictly nomi n a t i v e - e r g a t i v e in syntax (p . 129).M Clearly,
our proposal involves a rejection of D i x o n !s c l a i m ，since we
have found languages in w h i c h no " n ominativen can be identi­
fied at a l l .
2. There is an apparent exception in Lisu; the n y a m o r ­
pheme w h i c h is the topic m a r k e r appears also in sentences
involving no p r e s uppositions at a l l , such as
(i) swu nya ath a da -
one topic k nife forge - decl.
marker m arker
"Someone is forging a k n i f e .11
In such sentences, n y a is a utomatically added to the Agent if
there is o n e , to the D ative if there is no a g e n t , to the
Object if there is n o D a t i v e , or to the Instrumental if there
is no Object. N y a appears to function in two quite distinct
ways, then, d e p ending on w h e t h e r or not the sentence contains
any presupposed n o u n p h r a s e s . Hope (1974) refers to this d i s ­
tinction wit h his terms "primary" and "secondary" topicaliza-
tion-
3. Kuno ( 1 9 7 2 b :270) m akes a similar p o i n t , using the
term "theme" for w h a t w e are calling T o p i c : "The theme must
be either anaphoric ( i . e . , p r e viously mentioned) or g e n e r i c ,
..." The term "theme," incidentally, though used by Kuno in
muc h the same way as we are u s ing "topic," is not used by
P rague school linguists in the same way. F i r b a s ，for example,
who has perhaps w r i t t e n m o r e on the notions of "theme" and
"rheme" than anyone e l s e , considers the ’ ’
t heme” to be the
element w h i c h m a y be inferred from the context and w hich con­
tributes the least to the development of the comraunication
(Firbas 1966). Crucial to his development of this notion is
the fact that every sentence can be said to have a t h e m e .
However, not every sentence has a topic.
4. So-called " dummy subjects" are only apparent e xcep­
tions , since they hav e no semantic c o n t e n t , and cannot there­
fore be included in a g e n e ralization concerning the semantic
relationship bet w e e n nouns and v e r b s .
5. We are not c l a i m i n g , of c o u r s e , that the topic has
n ot h i n g to do with the c o m m e n t . We do not expect to find a
l anguage in w hich the following type of sentence o c c u r s :
(i) m other ( t o p i c ) , H a r r y c a n Tt stand chocolate m o u s s e .
H o w e v e r , w e do not bel i e v e the oddness of a sentence like (i)

486
to be a grammatical problem, but rather a pragmatic one*. The
point w h i c h we wil l continue to emphasize in the text is that
the r elationship b e t w e e n a subj ect and its verb is mu c h more
g r a m m a tically constrained than that between a topic and the
c o m m e n t . A n e x planation for this difference in terms of the
functional role of topic and subject is offered in Section
11(d) below.
6. We are grateful to Paul Schachter for calling this
fact to our attention. See also E.L. Keenan (Definition of
Subject, this v o l u m e ) .
1• Talmy G ivon (this volume) takes a different position.
Ac c o r d i n g to him, all agreement is topic-agreement, where
"agreement" includes resumptive subj ect p r o n o u n s , as in
(i) M y m o t h e r she just came in.
W h i l e we are convinced by the evidence supporting G i v o n 1s
claim that agreement arises diach r o n ically from resumptive
p r o n o u n s , we do take issue w i t h the claim that agreement m o r ­
phemes and subject pronouns are indistinguishable synchroni-
c a l l y . W e k n o w of no evidence against the hypothesis that by
the time the pro n o u n has b ecome a b o und agreement morpheme
the noun wit h w h i c h it agrees is no longer simply a topic but
is integrated into the grammatical s ystem as a subject. Evi­
dence i s ，however, difficult to f i n d , since none of the topic-
prominent languages that we hav e investigated have well-
de v e loped anaphoric pronoun s y s t e m s .
8. We are grateful to Irwin Howard for calling to our
at t e ntion the c o rrelation bet w e e n topic-prominence and special
p a s s i v e s . For some d i s c u s s i o n , see Howard (1969) and Kuno
(1973). There i s , however, some evidence that both Mandarin
and Japanese are m o v i n g away from passives expressing only
adverse e f f e c t s , w h i c h m a y be due to the influence of English
translations (G. Bedell, personal cotnmunication; see also
Howard, 1969).
9. There are mor e serious objections to certain details
of T e n g 1s a n a l y s i s . For e x a m p l e , T e n g Ts sentential predicate
is claimed to be a VP. B u t , as has been pointed out by
Charles Tang and Ma r i e - C l a u d e P a r i s , the "sentential predi­
cate" only obeys the tests for VP- h o o d (which exploit the
pre-VP posit i o n of m o d a l s and certain adverbs) if it is a
lexicalized unit of some k i n d . Thus the "sentential predi­
cate" tou tens "head ache ’ ' in 25 behaves like a V P , but yezi
da "leaves big" in 23 does n o t :
(i) Ta you tou teng le
he again head ache aspect
MHe has a h e a d -ache a g a i n . "

487
 (ii) *Nei - ke shu you y ezi da le
that - c l a s s . tree again leaves bi g aspect
"That tree again has b i g l e a v e s . ?t
For m o r e d i s c u s s i o n of nd o u b l e - s u b j e c t M sentences, see Li and
T h o m p s o n (in p r e p a r a t i o n ) •
10. We are aware that subject m a r kers (ga and ka) s o m e ­
times o c c ur w i t h the topics in "double subject" constructions
in J a p a n e s e and K o r e a n respectively. It appears that subject
m a r k e r s can appear w i t h topics in certain discourse s i t u a ­
tions , but we do not at present u nderstand this phenom e n o n
w e l l enough to be m o r e precise.
11. An exception m a y be the d e letion of a first - p e r s o n
pro n o u n on identity w i t h a n o n - t o pic first person p r o n o u n in
a prece d i n g clause. Thus, some speakers of M a n d a r i n accept
the following s e n t e n c e , w h e r e the deleted constituent is
u nderstood to refer to the subject nI , n and not to the topic
Mthis c h a r a c t e r 11:
(i) Zheige zi wo bu renshi ， suoyi __________
this character I not recognize so
bu kan zheiben xi ao s hu o
not read this novel
"This character, I don* t recognize, so (I) w o n 11 read
this n o v e l / 1
12. It is appropriate here to point out that there is
no inconsistency b e tween (1) using t o pi c-predicate inco mp at i­
bility as evidence in arguing that topics control deletion
and (2) pointing out that topics are independent of p r e d i c a ­
ted (see Section 11(b) and 11(c)). Topics ma y be independent
of p r e d i c a t e d in terms of grammatical processes and selec­
tional relations if there is also a subject in the c l a u s e ,
but in a clause in w h i c h there is no subject distinct from
the topic, as in the second clauses of 27-29, then of course
subject and topic properties cannot be d i s t i n g u i s h e d . The
point is that the NP w h i c h is understood as filling the
blanks in 27-29 is the topic of the first clause and not its
subject. (We are gr ateful to Greg Lee and Fu Yi - C h i n for
their comments on this point.)
13. Following S o e m a r m o 1s (1970) analysis of I n d o n e s i a n ,
we consider the topic-comment structure to be the one that
involves the n left d i s l oc at i on 11 of a constituent. Those sen­
tences that contain an initial noun phrase marked by the p o s t ­
po si ti on jang are analyzed as havi ng the focus p re su pposition
structure rather than the topic-comment s t r u c t u r e . Fo r e xa m ­
ple, the sentence

488
 Anak itu j ang niembeli sepatu ,
child Art. b uy shoe *
"It was the child who b ought shoes."
has a focus anak itu m a r k e d by jang and a presupposition:
"someone bo u g h t shoes."
14. Of c o u r s e , one could try to suggest that sentences
such as 64 and 65 are derived f r o m sentences with the object
in final p o s i t i o n b y a rule of object p r e p o s i n g . It is
important to note, h o w e v e r , that object preposing generally
does not entail a g e n t - d e l e t i o n ，w h i c h one would have to pos­
tulate to account for sentences such as 64 and 65. In addi­
tion, no such r u l e can be invoked to account for examples
such as 60-63, w h i c h do not differ f rom the "pseudo-passive"
in any way, except that the topic in the "pseudo-passive" has
a s e l e c tional rel a t i o n s h i p w i t h the v e r b .
15. See H o o p e r and T h o m p s o n (1973) for a discussion of
this notion.
16. This f o r m u l a t i o n was sugge sted to us by Wallace
Chafe (personal c o m m u n i c a t i o n ) . For a discussion of case
frames, see F i l l m o r e (1968)*

489