In this paper we discuss the question of whether topics are necessarily restricted to root clauses. From an interface perspective, if topics affect the management of the conversational common ground (Reinhart 1981; Büring 2003; Krifka 2007), we expect them to appear in clauses endowed with illocutive force, implementing a conversational move (§ 2). This conclusion, however, is too general. Adopting the typology of topics by Frascarelli & Hinterhölzl (2007), we show (§ 3) that Familiar topics do not affect the conversational dynamics, and as expected, they are not restricted to root clauses. The English-Romance asymmetry in the distribution of topics (Haegeman 2004) is reduced to the lack of Familiar topics in English, as opposed to Romance. In § 4 we discuss English contrastive topics, showing that they have embedded interpretations in non-asserted complement clauses: we therefore sketch a semantic analysis which does not link contrastive topics to conversational strate...
Frascarelli, M., & Bianchi, V. (2010). "Is Topic a Root Phenomenon?". IBERIA, 2.1, 43-88.
|Titolo:||"Is Topic a Root Phenomenon?"|
FRASCARELLI, MARA [Formal Analysis] (Corresponding)
|Data di pubblicazione:||2010|
|Citazione:||Frascarelli, M., & Bianchi, V. (2010). "Is Topic a Root Phenomenon?". IBERIA, 2.1, 43-88.|
|Appare nelle tipologie:||1.1 Articolo in rivista|