cid 1245b8fcf1da5168916952e2d6f77ee6d537e9d1cacb623c533fb673014e5078 · original · open access · via openalex
Title: Is Topic a Root Phenomenon Authors: Valentina Bianchi; Mara Frascarelli Venue: LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) Year: 2010 Canonical: openalex:https://openalex.org/W2120909921 URL: https://openalex.org/W2120909921 Collector: openalex OA: true ABSTRACT Abstract and roadmap. In this paper we discuss the widespread assumption that topics are a root phenomenon. The paper is organized as follows: after some introductory remarks ( § 1), in § 2 we review some current analyses of sentence topics and contrastive topics and consider their role in conversational dynamics (Krifka’s 2007 common ground management). We then derive the root restriction on topics from an interface requirement: since they affect the conversational dynamics, they must be hosted in clauses endowed with illocutive force. In § 3 we adopt a threefold distinction of topics (Aboutness-Shift, Contrastive and Familiar/Given Topics), based on Frascarelli and Hinterhölzl’s (2007) investigation on the formal and interface properties of dislocated constituents in Italian and German; we then show that the well-known opposition between Italian and English-like topic constructions with respect to embedded realizations only concerns Familiar/Given topics, which do not affect the conversational dynamics at all. Romance Clitic Left Dislocation is therefore not a real counterexample to the root restriction. In § 4, on the other hand, we call into question Büring’s (2003) definition of the Contrastive Topic and show the need for a reconsideration of its semantic and formal properties; we provide overwhelming evidence that English Contrastive Topics are not subject to the root restriction, since they have genuinely embedded interpretations and can be found in non-asserted complement clauses. We then propose a novel analysis for this type of topic. In § 5 we reconsider Aboutness-shift Topics, showing that they fully respect the root restriction. However, we argue that Portner and Yabushita’s (1988) «root promotion » of embedded topics is incorrect and we discuss Krifka’s (2001) suggestion that the A-Topic instantiates an independent speech act. § 6 resumes the problem of root-like clauses and offers a tentative solution for their «quasi-assertive » role. A summary and some conclusions are offered in § 7.