國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Chapter Two
Literature Review
In this chapter, previous studies concerning Chinese topic chain and its
translation will be presented. Section 2.1 will present the distinctions between subject and topic. Section 2.2 will present definitions of topic chain from previous studies.
Examples of typical and atypical topic chains will be given. Section 2.3 will present previous studies on translation of Chinese topic-comment structure and topic chain.
Last, in section 2.4, previous literature on discourse segmentation will be discussed.
2.1 Subject and Topic
The terms topic and comment are first proposed by Hockett (1958) as a more semantic notion than a syntactic one. They are used to characterize a predicative construction in English and European languages: “the speaker announces a topic and then says something about it” (p. 201). At that time, topics were considered subjects, while comments were considered predicates. The terms are adopted by Chao (1968) as semantic terms to describe Chinese subject-predicate structure. He does not treat topic differently from subject.
The term topic is not differentiated from subject until the 1970s. A new typology of languages is proposed by Li & Thompson (1976). World languages are classified
‧
based on the two different grammatical relations: subject-predicate and topic-comment. Seven characteristics of topic and subject are proposed (Li &
Thompson, 1976, pp. 461-465):
(1)
a. A topic must be definite. Proper and generic NPs are also understood as definite. A subject, on the other hand, need not be definite.
b. A topic need not have a selectional relation with any verb in a sentence;
that is, it need not be an argument of a predicative constituent. On the other hand, a subject always has a selectional relation with some predicate in the sentence2.
c. A topic is not determined by the verb but by discourse while a subject can be predicted by the verb.
d. The functional role of the topic is constant across sentences whereas the functional role of the subject can be defined only within the confines of a sentence.
e. A topic does not have obligatory agreement to the predicate; however, a subject has obligatory agreement to the verb.
f. A topic is always confined to the sentence-initial position but a subject is not.
g. While a subject plays a prominent role in some grammatical processes, such as reflexivization, passivization, imperativization and verb serialization, a topic is not involved in such processes.
From the characteristics proposed by Li & Thompson (1976) in (1), we can see that topic is recognized as a discourse notion while subject as a syntactic notion. A topic is
not determined by the verb and can function across sentences whereas a subject bears selectional relation to the verb and its function is confined in a sentence. Based on the characteristics in (1), world languages are typologized into four: Subject-Prominent
2 The surface subject of some sentences may not be selectionally related to the main surface verb. For example, John in John is easy to please is analyzed selectionally unrelated to the main predicate by some transformational linguists, according to Li & Thompson (1976).
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Languages (e.g. English), Topic-Prominent Languages (e.g. Chinese),
Subject-Prominent and Topic-Prominent Languages (e.g. Japanese), and Neither Subject-Prominent nor Topic-Prominent Languages (e.g. Tagalog). The four types, according to Li & Thompson, constitute a continuum. Chinese is more
topic-prominent than English, but that does not mean subjects cannot be found in Chinese nor does it mean that topics do not exist in such a Subject-Prominent Language as English.
In fact, topic and subject3 are not mutually exclusive in Chinese (Chu, 1998;
Tsao, 1979; Li & Thompson, 1981). Chinese sentences can have both a topic and a subject as in text (2). Chinese sentences can also have a nominal form serving as topic and subject at the same time as in text (3). In addition, Chinese sentences may have only a topic without a subject as in (4). What is more, both the topic and the subject can be omitted in a Chinese sentence as in (5).
(2) 那隻 狗 我已經 看 過 了。
Na-zhi gou wo yijing kan-guo le that-CLASS dog I already see-ASP PAR
‘That dog I have already seen.’ (Li & Thompson, 1981, p. 88) (3) 我 喜歡 吃 蘋果。
Wo xihuan chi pinguo I like eat apple
‘I like to eat apples.’ (Li & Thompson, 1981, p. 88)
3 The properties of Chinese subject and topic are still at debate. We do not want to go into the debate about the properties of the two terms. For a more detailed discussion, please see Tsao, F.-F. (1979). A functional study of topic in Chinese: The first step towards discourse analysis.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
(4) 那本 書 出版了。
Na-ben shu chuban-le that-CLASS book publish-ASP
‘That book, (someone) has published it.’ (Li & Thompson, 1981, p. 88) (5) A: 橘子 壞了 嗎? B:壞了。
A: Juzi huai-le ma B: Huai-le.
orange spoil-ASP Q spoil-ASP
‘Are the oranges spoiled? ’ ‘(They) are spoiled’
(Li & Thompson, 1981, p. 90)
In example (2), na-zhi gou (那隻狗) ‘that dog,’ which appears at the beginning of the sentence, is the topic. The pronoun wo (我) ‘I’ is the subject because it has selectional relation with the verb kan (看) ‘see.’ This sentence has both the topic and the subject.
In example (3), the topic is also the subject. Wo (我) ‘I’ in this example is both the topic and the subject. In example (4), the topic is na-ben shu (那本書) ‘that-CLASS book,’ and the subject is omitted from the sentence. In example (5), B’s answer does not contain the topic/subject juzi (橘子) ‘orange’ because it can be understood from the context.
Elaborating on Li & Thompson’s (1976) “topic-prominent language,” Tsao (1979) proposes that Chinese is a “discourse-oriented language.” According to Tsao (1979), subject and topic belong to different levels of grammatical organization. He explicitly states that “[t]opic is a discourse notion” and that “it may, and often does, extend its semantic domain to more than one sentence” (Tsao, 1979, p. 88). “[A] topic can be regarded as a topic only at the discourse level; at the sentence level it may be regarded
‧
as several different things” (Tsao, 1979, p. 92).
A topic has various syntactic and semantic relations to the sentences under its domain. Syntactically, a topic can be the subject, the direct object, or the indirect object.
‘That tree, its flowers were small. Its leaves were big. It was ugly so I didn’t buy it.’ (Tsao, 1979, pp. 92-93)
In (6), the topic neike shu (那棵樹) ‘that tree’ is established in (a). Following the topic, hua (花) ‘flower’ in (a) is the subject. In (b), the topic is in the zero form, followed by
the subject yezi (葉子) ‘leaf.’ In (c), the topic and the subject are identical. In (d), the topic is also the direct object of the verb mai (買) ‘buy.’
On the other hand, a topic can take a non-nucleus syntactic position and bear an adverbial relation of either time or place to the verb. In (7), the topic zuotian (昨天)
‘yesterday’ is time while in (8), the topic Beijing-chen li (北京城裡) ‘inside Beijing city’ is a place.
‧
Yesterday (PART) Zhang San come see me‘Yesterday, Zhang San came to see me.’ (Tsao, 1979, p. 104) (8) 北京 城 裡 (啊)， 有 個 故宮。
Beijing-cheng li (a), you ge Gu-gong Beijing-city inside (PART), exist a Old-Palace
‘Inside Beijing city, (there) exists a palace called Old Palace.’ (Tsao, 1979, p.
104)
Semantically, Tsao mentions four relations between the topic and the clause(s) of its domain:
(9) The possessor and the possessed
這個 人(啊)， 頭腦 簡單， 四肢 發達。
Zhe-ge ren (a), tounao jiandan, si-zhi fada.
this-CLASS man (PART), mind simple four-limbs well-developed
‘This man, (his) mind is simple; (his) body well-developed.’ (Tsao, 1979, p.
105)
(10) Whole and part
三十六 計 (啊)， 走 為 上 策。
Sanshiliu ji (a), zou wei shang ce.
thirty-six alternative (PART) running-away is best alternative
‘Among the thirty-six alternatives, running away is the best.’ (Tsao, 1979, p.
105)
(11) Class and member
魚 (啊)， 鮪魚 現在 最 貴。
Yu (a), weiyu xianzai zui gui.
fish (PART), tuna now most expensive
‘Fish, tuna is now the most expensive.’ (Tsao, 1979, p. 105) (12) Relevance
這件 事 (啊)，我的 經驗 太 多了。
Zhe-jian shi (a), wode jingyan tai duo-le.
This-Class matter, my experience too many-Asp
‘With regard to this matter, I have had a great deal of experience.’ (Tsao, 1979, p. 129)
The four examples above are known as “double subject” or “double nominative”
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
constructions.4 The former three relations (9), (10), (11) can be paraphrased with a possessive construction. In (9), the topic this man and the following sentences bear a possessor-possessed relationship. In (10), the topic the thirty-six alternatives is whole while the following running is part of the the thirty-six alternatives. In (11), the topic fish is a class and the following tuna is a member of the class. In (12), however, the
semantic relation is merely relevance and cannot be paraphrased with a possessive structure.