Subject and Topic
Subject and Topic
Subject and Topic
de/Korean/Artikel03/
sentences favors a description in which the grammatical relation topic-comment plays a major role.
In type (iii) languages, there are two equally important distinct sentence constructions, the
subject-predicate construction and the topic-comment construction; in type (iv) languages, the
subject and the topic have merged and are no longer distinguishable in all sentence types. In order
to clarify the subject-predicate construction and the topic-comment construction, we may use two
types of English sentences as examples:
1
John
Hit Mary.
Subject
Predicate
As for education,
Topic
Comment
In Sp languages, the basic 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 languages, one cannot
identify subjects, or that Sp languages do not have topics. In fact, all the languages we have
investigated have the topic-comment construction, and although not all languages have the
subject-predicate construction, there appear to be ways of identifying subjects in most Tp
languages. (p. 460)
Our typological claim will simply be that some languages can be more insightfully described by
taking the concept of topic to be basic, while others can be more insightfully described by taking
the notion of subject as basic. This is due to the fact that many structural phenomena of a language
can be explained on the basis of whether the basic structure of its sentences is analyzed as
subject-predicate or topic-comment. According to a number of criteria which we will outline
below, and a small sample of languages which we have investigated, the following typological
table may be established.
Subject-Prominent Languages
Topic-Prominent Languages
Indo-European
Chinese
Niger-Congo
Finno-Ugric
Lisu (Lolo-Burmese)
Simitic
Dyirbal (Australian)
Indonesian
Malagasy
:
Subject-Prominent and
Topic-Prominent 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 topic-prominence, a careful investigation of
the syntactic structures of a language is necessary. Since the tradition in linguistic studies
emphasizes the subject as the basic, universal grammatical relation, grammarians tend to assume
that sentences of a language are naturally structured in terms of subject, object, and verb. In
general, it is not considered that the basic structure of a sentence could be described in terms of
topic and comment.1 There are exceptions. For example, Schachter and Otanes (1972) stated that
the Tagalog basic (p. 461)
sentence structure should not be described in terms of the notion subject Another example is E.
Hope (1974) who has described a remarkable Tp language, Lisu, a Lolo-Burmese language. But in
general, 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 many such
grammars are biased toward the subject-predicate analysis. Modern generative linguistics does not
represent any advance in this particular area. The assumption remains that the basic sentence
structure should be universally described in terms of subject, object, and verb. Our goal in this
paper is, therefore, a modest one: we wish to establish the value and the validity of a typology
based on the notions of subject-prominence and topic-prominence. We will proceed as follows.
First, we will outline the differences between subjects and topics in terms of a number of
properties which they do not share; then we will discuss some of the characteristics of Tp
languages. We will then show that the topic-comment structure in Tp languages is indeed a basic
sentence type, and finally we will explain the implications of the typology for the study of
universal grammar.
II. Subject vs. Topic.*
(a) Definite.
According to Chafe (this volume), a definite noun phrase is one for which
"I think you already know and can identify the particular referent I have in mind."
One of the primary characteristics of topics, then, is that they must be definite2 (see Chafe, this
volume, for further remarks on definiteness).
According to this characterization of definiteness, proper and generic NPs are also understood as
definite. The conditions regarding the speaker's assessment of the hearer's knowledge under which
a proper noun can be appropriately used are the same as those under which a definite common
noun phrase can be used. A generic noun phrase is definite because its referent is the class of
items named by the noun phrase, which the hearer can be assumed to know about if he knows the
meaning of that noun phrase.3
A subject, on the other hand, need not be definite. For example, the subjects of 3 and 4 are
indefinite:
The topics in these sentences, 5 "this field," 6 "elephants," 7 "that fire," 8 "those trees," have no
selectional relation with the verbs. Similarly, in Japanese, the topic marked by the particle wa, and
in Korean, the topic marked by the particle (n)un need not be selectionally related to the verb of
the sentence, as shown in 9 and 10:
9
siban-un
kakkjo-ga
manso
now-topic marker
school-subject marker
many
(Korean)
10
Gakkoo-wa
buku-ga
isogasi-kat-ta
chool-topic marker
I-subject marker
busy-past
(Japanese)
tense
"School (topic), I was busy."
The subject, on the other hand, always has a selectional relation with some predicate in the
sentence. It is true that the surface subject of some sentences may not be selectionally related to
the main surface verb. For example, classical transformational analyses (e.g., Chomsky 1965;
Rosenbaum 1967; Postal 1971; Postal and Ross 1971) recognize the surface subject. "John," in the
following sentences to be selectionally unrelated to the main predicates, "be easy" and "appear."
(p. 463)
11 John is easy to please.
12 John appears to be angry.
This fact, however, does not contradict our claim that the subject of a sentence is always
selectionally related to some predicate in the sentence. In the surface structure, the subject might
not be adjacent to the predicate to which it is selectionally related, and it might even have assumed
a new grammatical relationship with a verb to which it is not selectionally related. But the fact
remains that a selectional relation must exist between the subject of a sentence and some verb in
that sentence4, whereas no such relationship need exist between topic and verb.5
(c) Verb determines "Subject" but not "Topic."
A correlate of the fact that a subject is selectionally related to the verb is the fact that, with certain
qualifications, it is possible to predict what the subject of any given verb will be.6 Thus, in English,
if a verb occurs with an agent as well as other noun phrases, the agent will become the subject
unless a "special" construction is resorted to, such as the passive. (This way of stating the fact
about subjectivalization is due to Fillmore, 1968:37.) If the verb is intransitive, either the patient
or the actor, depending on whether the verb is a stative verb or an action verb, will be the subject.
If the verb is causative, the causer will be the subject. These facts represent some of the
language-independent generalizations about how the subject is determined by the verb. There is no
doubt that not all verbs in a language can be classified with respect to subjectivization on a
language-independent basis. For example, in English, the verb "enjoy" will take the experiencer
but not the accusative as the subject, whereas the verb "please" will have the accusative noun
phrase but not the experiencer as the subject. But the fact remains that given a verb, the subject is
predictable.
The topic, on the other hand, is not determined by the verb; topic selection is independent of the
verb. Discourse may play a role in the selection of the topic, but within the constraints of the
discourse, the speaker still has considerable freedom in choosing a topic noun phrase regardless of
what the verb is. This characteristic of the topic is clearly demonstrated by our earlier examples,
5-8, with topic-comment structure.
(d) Functional role.
The functional role of the topic is constant across sentences; as Chafe (this volume) suggests: (p.
464)
"What the topics appear to do is limit the applicability of the main predication to a certain
restricted domain. . . . The topic sets a spatial, temporal, or individual framework within which the
main predication holds."
Clearly, this function of specifying the domain within which the predication holds is related to the
structure of the discourse in which the sentence is found. The topic is the "cencer of attention"; it
announces the theme of the discourse. This is why the topic must be definite (see section II(a)
above). The functional role of the topic as setting the framework within which the predication
holds precludes the possibility of an indefinite topic. A feel for the bizarreness of such a topic can
be gained from considering the impossibility of interpreting the following English sentence:
0
13
it
yesterday.
one
Looking at the functional role of the subject, on the other hand, reveals two facts. First, some NPs
which can be clearly identified as subjects do not play any semantic role in the sentence at all; that
is, in many subject-prominent languages, sentences may occur with "empty" or "dummy" subjects
(see section III(c) below). Second, in case the subject NP is not empty, the functional role of the
subject can be defined within the confines of a sentence as opposed to a discourse. According to
Michael Noonan (personal communication), the subject can be characterized as providing the
orientation or the point of view of the action, experience, state, etc., denoted by the verb. This
difference in the functional roles between the subject and the topic explains the fact that the
subject is always an argument of the verb, while the topic need not be (see section II(b) above).
The explanation runs as follows: if we are to view the action, experience, state, etc., denoted by
the verb from the point of view of an entity (or orient the description towards that entity), the
entity must be involved in the action, experience or state, etc., and must therefore be an argument
of the verb. Thus we see that the distinct functions of the topic and the subject turn out to explain
the differences between them in definiteness and selectional relations.
(e) Verb-agreement.
It is well known that the verb in many languages shows obligatory agreement with the subject of a
sentence. Topic-predicate agreement, however, is very rare, and we know of no language in which
it is widespread or (p. 465 )
obligatory. The reason for this is quite straightforward: topics, as we have seen, are much more
independent of their comments than are subjects of their verbs. Evidence of this independence can
be found in the fact, discussed in section II(a) and II(c), that the topic need not have any
selectional relationship to any verb and that the topic is not determined by the verb of the sentence.
Given this independence, it is to be expected that a constituent in the comment is not normally
marked to agree with some grammatical property of the topic. Morphological agreement, then,
where some inherent properties of the subject noun are represented by verbal affixes, is a common
kind of surface coding for subjects (see E.L. Keenan, Definition of Subject, this volume).7
(f) Sentence-initial position.
Although the surface coding of the topic may involve sentence position as well as morphological
markers, it is worth noting that the surface coding of the topic in all the languages we have
examined always involve the sentence-initial position. In Lisu, Japanese, and Korean, the topic is
obligatorily codified by morpheme markers. In Lahu, the topic is optionally codified by
morpheme markers. But regardless of the morpheme markers, the topic in these languages must
remain in sentence-initial position. Subject, on the other hand, is not confined to the
sentence-initial position. In Malagasy 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 must be in sentence-initial position may be understood in terms of discourse
strategies. Since speech involves serialization of the information to be communicated, it makes
sense that the topic, which represents the discourse theme, should be introduced first. The subject,
being a more sentence-oriented notion, need not receive any priority in the serialization process.
(g) Grammatical processes.
The subject but not the topic plays a prominent role in such processes as reflexivization,
passivization, Equi-NP deletion, verb serialization and imperativization (see E.L. Keenan,
Definition of Subject, this volume). Thus the reflexive pronoun generally marks a co-referential
relation with the subject of the sentence; passivization may be viewed, at least in part, as a process
promoting the patient to the subjecthood; in Equi-NP deletion, the deleted constituent in the
complement is generally the subject; verb serialization which is found in the Niger-Congo
languages and the Sino-Tibetan languages, involves the concatenation of a series of verb phrases
with one identical subject; the deleted second person morpheme in an imperative sentence is
always the subject. The reason that the topic is (p. 466)
not involved in such grammatical processes is partially due to the fact that the topic, as we have
shown earlier, is syntactically independent of the rest of the sentence. Reflexivization,
passivization, Equi-NP deletion, verb serialization etc., are concerned with the internal syntactic
structure of sentences. 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 processes.
To sum up this section on the differences between the subject and the topic, we 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 subject.
We may single out three basic factors underlying these criteria: discourse strategy, noun-verb
relations, and grammatical processes. The subject has a minimal discourse function in contrast
with the topic. Hence, the topic but not necessarily the subject is discourse-dependent, serves as
the center of attention of the sentence, and must be definite. 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 verb, and is selectionally related to the verb; and the subject
often obligatorily controls verb agreement. These properties of the subject are not shared by the
topic. 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 considerations; the latter in terms of its functions within the sentence structure.
III. Characteristics of Topic-Prominent Languages.*
Having examined a number of properties of topics as opposed to subjects, let us now turn to a
discussion of some of the grammatical implications of topic-prominence and subject-prominence.
(a) Surface coding.
In Tp languages, there will be a surface coding for the topic, but not necessarily for the subject.
For example, in Mandarin, the topic is always in initial position; in Lisu and Lahu, the topic is
coded by a morphological marker. In none of these languages is there any surface coding for
subject, though, as we have pointed out, the subject notion can be identified as playing a role in
certain grammatical processes. In Japanese and Korean, which are both Tp and Sp, there is a
morpheme marking the topic (wa and (n)un, respectively) as well as one marking the subject (ga
and ka, respectively). (p. 467)
(b) The passive construction.
The passive construction is common among Sp languages. Among Tp languages, on the other
hand, passivization either does not occur at all (e.g., Lahu, Lisu), or appears as a marginal
construction, rarely used in speech (e.g., Mandarin), or carries a special meaning (e.g., the
"adversity" passive in Japanese).8 The relative insignificance of the passive in Tp languages can
be explained as follows: in Sp languages, the notion of subject is such a basic one that if a noun
other than the one which a given verb designates as its subject becomes the subject, the verb must
be marked to signal this "non-normal" subject choice. Fillmore states this requirement as follows
for the verb "give" in English:
"The 'normal' choice of subject for sentences containing an A(gent). . . is the A. The verb give also
allows either O(bject) or D(ative) to appear as subject as long as this 'non-normal' choice is
'registered' in the V. This 'registering' of a 'non-normal' subject takes place via the association of
the feature [+ passive] with the Y." (Fillmore, 1968:37)
In Tp languages, it is the topic, not the subject, that plays a more significant role in sentence
construction. Any noun phrase can be the topic of a sentence without registering anything on the
verb. It is, therefore, natural that the passive construction is not as widespread in Tp languages as
it is in Sp languages.
(c) "Dummy" subjects.
"Dummy" or "empty" subjects, such as the English it and there, the German es, the French il and
ce, may be found in an Sp language but not in a Tp language. This is because in an Sp language a
subject may be needed whether or not it plays a semantic role. Examples from English include:
14 It is raining.
15 It is hot in here.
16 It is possible that the war will end.
17 There is a cat in the garden.
In a Tp language, as we have emphasized, where the notion of subject does not play a prominent
role, there is no need for "dummy" subjects. In cases where no subject is called for, the sentence in
a Tp language can simply do without a subject. For example, the Mandarin sentences
corresponding to 15-17 are respectively 18-20. (p. 468)
18
Zher hen re
(Mandarin)
(Mandarin)
(Mandarin)
21
(Japanese)
22
(Korean)
23
(Mandarin)
24
ho o na - qho yi ve yo
elephant top. nose long prt. declar.
"Elephants (topic), noses are long."
(Lahu)
Such sentences are, of course, the clearest cases of topic-comment structures. First, the topic and
the subject both occur and can thus be distinguished easily. Second, the topic has no selectional
relationship with the verb. Third, no argument can be given that these sentences could be derived
by any kind of "movement" rule from some other sentence type. Fourth, all Tp languages have
sentences of this type, while no pure Sp languages do, as far as we know. It has been suggested
(Teng 1974) for Mandarin and by Park (1973) for Korean that these sentences involve a
"sentential predicate." That is, a Mandarin sentence such as
25
Ta tou teng
he head ache
"He has a head-ache."
27
The deleted object in the second clause can only be understood to refer to the topic "that tree," and
not to the subject "leaves."
28
Similarly, the deleted constituent in 28 refers to the topic "that piece of land," and not to the
subject "rice." (p. 470)
Sentence 29 illustrates a case in which the subject "fire brigade" cannot control the deletion in the
second clause, and the topic "that fire" is incompatible with that clause, so it is incoherent:
29
The point we are making is that in a Tp language, the topic takes precedence over the subject in
controlling co-reference.12
(f) V-final languages.
Tp languages tend to be verb-final languages, as has been pointed out by Hsieh Hsin-I and W.P.
Lehmann (personal communication). Japanese, Korean, Lisu, and Lahu are mature and
indisputable verb-final languages, and Chinese, as we have argued elsewhere (see Li and
Thompson 1974a and 1974b) is in the process of becoming one. In the final section, we will
suggest a possible explanation for this fact.
(g) Constraints on topic constituent.
In certain Sp languages, the topic-comment type of sentence is highly constrained in terms of what
can serve as the topic constituent. Indonesian, for instance, only allows the surface subject
constituent and the genitive of the surface subject constituent to be the topic.13 Consider sentence
30, a simple subject-predicate construction in Indonesian,
30
(Indonesian)
(Indonesian)
The genitive of the subject, anak itu "that child," may also be the topic:
32
(Indonesian)
p. 471
However, if the object noun phrase, sepatu "shoe," of sentence 30 is the topic, the sentence is
ungrammatical:
33
(Indonesian)
In topic-prominent languages, on the other hand, there are no constraints on what may be the topic.
We would like to make it quite clear that we are not arguing against any particular formulation
according to which such a derivational relationship might be established; rather we are arguing
against the desirability in principle of viewing topic-comment sentences as derivative, marginal,
marked, or otherwise unusual sentence types in these languages. That is, we are not saying that
some generative apparatus could not be imagined which would "handle" the cases we are about to
present. Our claim is that the data which these Tp languages present are most naturally accounted
for by taking the topic-comment sentences to be basic and not derived.
(a) On the notion "basic sentence," E.L. Keenan (Definition of Subject, this volume), in
discussing the definition of "subject," offers a definition of "basic" sentence:
"i) a sentence A is more basic than a sentence B if, and only if, the syntactic form and the meaning
of B are understood as a function of those of A. (E.g., the form of B is some modification
[possibly addition to] that of A, and the meaning of B is some modification of that of A.)
"ii) a sentence is a basic sentence in L if and only if no other sentence of L is more basic than it."
According to both of these criteria, topic-comment sentences in Tp languages are basic. There are
no sentences more basic than they in terms of which their meaning or form can be specified. (p.
472)
(b) Lisu. The clearest data supporting this claim can be found in Lisu, a Tp language described in
Hope (1974). Our data will be taken from this work and his response to our inquiry about a
number of Lisu constructions while he was doing field work in Thailand. In Lisu, as we will
endeavor to show, even the grammatical relations Agent and Patient cannot be identified. Thus,
there is no way to identify the notion of subject. It is clear, then, that in Lisu, there is simply no
subject-predicate sentence form from which the topic-comment sentences could be said to be
derived.
(1) Grammatical relations. The sentence word order in Lisu is verb-final. If there is more than one
noun phrase preceding a verb, then the sentence is normally ambiguous as to which noun phrase
represents the agent or the actor and which noun phrase represents the patient. The structure of a
simple declarative sentence with a transitive verb will only indicate which noun phrase is the topic
but not which noun phrase is the agent. Sentences 34 and 35 are typical simple declarative
sentences in Lisu.
Sentences 34 and 35 are equally ambiguous as far as agency is concerned. Both sentences may
mean either people bite dogs or dogs bite people. The two sentences are different only in terms of
the topic. In 34, lathyu "people" is the topic, whereas in 35 ana "dog" is the topic. One may
wonder if a language such as Lisu, which completely neglects the codification of agency or
subjecthood would give rise to communication Problems. Of course. there are sentences which are
ambiguous, such as 36:
36 lame nya ana kyu - a
tiger topic marker dog bite - declarative marker
"Tigers (topic), they bite dogs /dogs bite them."
(p. 473)
The fact is, however, that this total disregard for agency or subjecthood in the structure of the
language does not impair its communicative function, as much as might be expected. First of all,
the context, whether linguistic or extra-linguistic, provides a great number of semantic cues.
Secondly, semantic properties such as humanness and animacy play a significant role in
disambiguating sentences which may be otherwise ambiguous because of the lack of any
indication of agency or subjecthood. In terms of pragmatics, one may safely assume that when one
hears either 34 or 35, the intended meaning would be dogs bite people, since people are normally
not expected to bite other creatures. Thus, although 34 and 35 are theoretically ambiguous, they do
not present a communication problem in most circumstances. But the structure of the Lisu verb
system also serves to minimize the potential ambiguity. For example, let us contrast the Lisu verb
thywu "burn" with the English verb burn. Although both verbs share a great deal in meaning, there
is a significant semantic difference between them. The Lisu verb thywu implies that what is being
burnt must be inanimate. The English verb burn does not have such a selectional restriction. Thus,
the Lisu sentence 37, whose English translation is acceptable, is ungrammatical:
37 *lathyu gu nya ana thywu - a
person that topic marker dog burn - declarative marker
"That person burned the dog."
Instead, a causative construction would have to be used to express this proposition.
Consider another Lisu verb sye "kill." Although it shares most of the meaning of the English verb
kill, it has very different selectional properties. The Lisu verb sye obligatorily co-occurs with the
noun yi-pe "an end," but need not occur with a patient noun which is selectionally required by the
English verb, kill. Sentence 38 illustrates the usage of sye "kill."
To further demonstrate that Agent and Patient are not systematically distinct in the grammar of
Lisu, and hence, that there is no possibility of identifying the subject in Lisu sentences, we would
like to cite some additional data.
39 lathyu nya aye ami khwa - a mu - a
people topic marker buffalo field hoe - decl. marker see - decl. marker
"The people (topic), they saw the buffaloes hoeing the field /the buffaloes saw them
hoeing the field."
40 aye nya lathyu ami khwa - a mu - a
buffalo topic marker people field hoe - decl. marker see - decl.marker
"The buffaloes (topic), they saw the people hoeing the field /the people saw them
hoeing the field."
41 ami nya aye lathyu khwa - a mu - a
field topic marker buffalo people hoe - decl. marker see - decl. marker
"The field (topic), the buffaloes saw the people hoeing it /the people saw the
buffaloes hoeing it."
42 ana nya lame dza hi - a
dog topic marker tiger eat difficult - decl. marker
"Dogs (topic), they are difficult for tigers to eat /tigers are difficult for them to eat."
43 lame nya ana dza hi - a
tiger topic marker dog eat difficult - decl. marker
"Tigers (topic), they are difficult for dogs to eat /dogs are difficult for them to eat."
44 ana nya lame dza nisyi - a
dog topic marker tiger eat want - decl. marker
"Dogs (topic), tigers want to eat them /they want to eat tigers."
45 lame nya ana dza nisyi - a
tiger topic marker dog eat want - decl. marker
"Tigers (topic), dogs want to eat them /they want to eat dogs."
(p. 475)
These Lisu sentences clearly show that neither word order nor morphology allows a grammatical
distinction to be made between nouns in different relationships with the verb, and that there is,
therefore, no identifiable subject in the sentence structure of this language.
(2) Reflexive. In the Thailand dialect of Lisu, the reflexive consists of a construction which is
either of the form repeating the co-referential NP meaning literally NP's body or of the form
meaning his body where a pronoun is being used.
(3) Co-ordination. The coordination marker in Lisu is ce. If several topic noun phrases are
conjoined, ce is used to replace one or all of the topic markers nya. (p. 476)
51 lathyu ce lame nya ana khu - a
people co-ord tiger topic marker dog bite decl. marker
"People and tigers (topic), they bite dogs /dogs bite them."
52 lathyu nya lame ce ana khu - a
people topic marker tiger co-ord dog bite decl. marker
a. "People and tigers (topic), they bite dogs /dogs bite them."
b. "People (topic), they bite dogs and tigers /dogs and tigers bite them."
Again the above examples indicate that co-ordination does not involve any notion of subject. The
two readings of 52 do indicate that co-ordination in Lisu follows the general constraint that the
conjoined constituents should be semantically and syntactically parallel. (See Schachter 1974.)
Hence, although 51 is ambiguous as far as the agent of biting is concerned, the conjoined NPs,
lathyu "people" and lame "tiger" must have the same semantic role with respect to the action of
biting. Sentence 52 is four-way ambiguous. However, the (a) readings are related to a surface
structure in which lathyu "people" and lame "tiger" are conjoined topics and in which the
co-ordination marker ce has replaced the topic marker nya, of the second topic, lame "tiger." The
(b) readings, on the other hand, have a surface structure in which only the NP lathyu "people," is
the topic, and the co-ordination marker ce conjoins the other two NPs, lame "tiger" and ana "dog,"
which are not topics. These examples show that the notion of subject does not play any role in the
structure of compound sentences in Lisu.
The Lisu examples presented above demonstrate that the syntactic relation of a noun phrase to the
verb in a sentence is indeterminate, and that the notion of subject is quite irrelevant in the
description of the sentences of this language. The only relevant notion in the syntactic structure of
Lisu sentences is the topic, which is always marked by the morpheme nya and occupies the
sentence initial position.
It might be suggested that Lisu is actually closer to being a subject-prominent language than we
have made it out to be. Recall that, as mentioned in footnote 2, nya does appear as a marker in
sentences containing no presupposed noun phrases such as: (p. 477)
53 swu nya atha da - a
one topic marker forge knife - decl. marker
"Someone is forging a knife."
Recall also that the rule governing the appearance of nya in such sentences is that it goes with the
agent if there is one, with the dative if there is no agent, with the object if there is no dative, and
with the instrumental if there is no dative. Now 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
role, but according to a hierarchy that is typically invoked for subject-prominent languages.
In support of our claim that Lisu is essentially a topic-prominent language, however, we want to
point out that this apparently subject-oriented nya-marking mechanism is restricted to sentences
involving no presupposed noun phrases, which are extremely rare in actual language use. Even a
superficial study of discourse shows that communication typically involves some noun phrase
whose referent is assumed by the speaker to be known to the hearer. Since this subject-marking
function of nya occurs only in this relatively rare sentence type, and since the notion of subject
seems to play no other role in the grammar of Lisu, then, we claim that the basic sentence
structure is topic-comment, with no candidates for any source from which it can be said to be
derived.
(c) Mandarin. We are not the first to suggest that Mandarin Chinese is a Tp language. Hong
(1956), Householder and Cheng (1967), Tai (1973), Huang (1973), and Alleton (1973) mention
the idea, and Chao (1968:67-104) discusses the Topic-Comment concept at some length. It is
important to note that, although he uses the terms subject and predicate throughout, we can
interpret these terms as topic and comment. That this is his intention can be seen from the
following remark:
"The grammatical meaning of subject and predicate in a Chinese sentence is topic and comment,
rather than actor and action." (p. 69)
What we are interested in, of course, is the distinction between topic and subject and its
implications for the establishment of a linguistic typology.
Now, unlike Lisu, Mandarin does have structures that could be called subject-predicate sentences.
For example,
53 Wode didi xihuan chi pingguo
my brother like eat apple
"My brother likes to eat apples."
(p. 478)
In this example, the word order parallels that of its English translation. From examples of this type,
one could conclude that Mandarin is, like English, a Sp language with the subject in initial
position. In addition, although we are describing Mandarin as Tp, as indicated earlier, the notion
of subject clearly plays a role in certain sentence structures. For example, the serial verb
construction must be described as a sequence of predicates sharing the same subject:
54 Zhang-san mai le piao jinqu
Zhang-san buy asp. ticket go in
"Zhang-san bought a ticket and went in." or
"Zhang-san bought a ticket to go in."
Serial verb sentences, as we described them in Li and Thompson (1973), may generally be
interpreted as expressing either purpose or actions which are consecutive, simultaneous, or
alternating. We can show that the notion of subject must be referred to in an account of this
construction by giving an example in which the noun shared by the two predicates is an agent of
one and an experiencer of the other. That is, serial verb sentences cannot be described by simply
referring to the agent of the two predicates:
55 Wo hue le gian xiangshou
I spend aspect money enjoy
"I spent money and had a good time." or
"I spent money to have a good time."
Furthermore, 56-59 illustrate that the subject may control reflexivization.
56 John xihuan ta - ziji
like he - self
"John likes himself."
57 John da ta - ziji
hit he - self
"John hit himself."
58 John skit ta - ziji de pengyou
is he - self genitive friend
"John is his own friend."
59 *John, wo xihuan ta - ziji
I like he self
*"John (topic) I like himself."
Sentence 59 shows that when the sentence contains a topic which can be distinguished from what
one might want to call the subject, this topic does not control reflexivization. (p. 479)
Thus, the grammar of Mandarin must refer to the subject to describe the process of reflexivization
(see E.L. Keenan, Definition of Subject, this volume). However, even for Mandarin, the evidence
against considering topic-comment sentences to be derived from sentences of a subject-predicate
form is very strong. Thus many normal topic-comment sentences whose topics have no selectional
relationship with the verb in the comment have no subject-predicate sources. Following are some
examples of this type.
60 Huang - se de turd! dafen zui heshi
yellow - color relative clause marker soil manure most suitable
"The yellow soil (topic), manure is most suitable."
61 Nei - zuo fangzi xingkui qu - nian mei xia xue
that classifier house fortunate last - year not snow
"That house (topic), fortunately it didn't snow last year."
62 Dongwu wo zuzhang bao - shou zhengce
animal I advocate conservation policy
"Animals (topic), I advocate a conservation policy."
63 Zei - jian shiqing ni bu neng guang mafan yi-ge ren
this classifier matter you not can only bother one person
"This matter (topic), you can't 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 Mandarin
sentences. There is simply no noun phrase in Mandarin sentences which has what E.L. Keenan has
termed "subject properties" (Definition of Subject, this volume). This means that a noun phrase
which one might want to defend as a subject is impossible to identify as such. As a case in point,
let us look briefly at a certain construction which we think provides a clear illustration of the
difference between Sp and Tp languages. We can call this construction the "pseudo-passive." Here
are two examples: (p. 480)
stative
p. 484
On the basis of synchronic as well as diachronic phenomena, it seems clear that subject and topic
are not unrelated notions. Subjects are essentially grammaticalized topics; in the process of being
integrated into the case frame of the verb (at which point we call them subjects), topics become
somewhat impure, and certain of their topic properties are weakened, but their topic-ness is still
recognizable.16 That is why many of the topic properties are shared by subjects in a number of
languages. For example, some Sp languages do not allow indefinite subjects.
What we are proposing here is that the universal notion of topic may be manifested in different
ways across languages. In some languages, such as Lisu and Mandarin, the topic properties are
coded in a topic constituent, and topic-comment sentences figure among the basic sentence
structures of these languages. In other languages, such as Malagasy (see E.L. Keenan, Malagasy,
this volume), some topic properties are carried by the subject, the constituent which is
grammatically closely related to the verb and which plays a major role in the description of a
number of grammatical processes. In such languages, to express unambiguously the topic as the
discourse theme involves a separate proposition whose only function is topic establishment. In
English, for example, we might do it this way:
79 (Remember /You know) Tom? Well, he fell off his bike yesterday.
Interestingly, this strategy is very commonly used by English-speaking children (see E.O. Keenan
and B.B. Schieffelin, this volume) and by users of American Sign Language (see L. Friedman, this
volume). In topic-prominent languages, on the other hand, topic-establishment is built into the
syntactic structure of the sentence. The differences between the two types of languages can have
profound structural implications, as we have tried to show.
On the basis of the cross-linguistic evidence we have presented, we suggest the diachronic schema
shown on the next page.
To return to the question raised earlier as to why the Tp languages are overwhelmingly verb-final,
we offer the following speculation: in propelling a language from stage (C) through stage (D) and
then to stage (A), the sentence type that plays a major role is the "double subject" type of sentence.
The more such sentences are used in the language, the closer the language comes to stage (A),
since these are topic-comment structures par excellence. Now note that the "double subject"
constructions are always of the form:
Tp
(A) topic notion integrated into basic sentence structure; topic and subject
distinct
(D) Both Tp
and Sp
(B) Neither Tp
nor Sp
topic sentences
become
less marked,
more
basic
topic becomes
more closely
integrated into
case
frame of verb
Sp
(C) topic has become integrated into case frame of verb as a subject; subject
and topic often indistinct, subjects having some non-topic properties; sentences
with clear topics are highly marked
80
which is precisely the typical sentence structure of a verb-final language. This sentence type
becomes pervasive as the relationship between NP1 and NP2 becomes less and less constrained.
In conclusion, we hope to have pointed to a new arena to observe the enactment of a familiar
drama: a synchronic typology is shown to be simply a slice of a diachronic cycle in which
different languages are caught at various stages. In our search for linguistic universals, we are
reminded that a typology is really a description of strategies for accomplishing the same
communicative goals.