Pragmatics l:2.169 -215

International Pragmatics Association

ON ASSIGNING PRAGMATIC FUNCTIONS IN ENGLISH

J. Lachlan Mackenzie and M. Evelien Keizer

Abstract

This paper presents a d iscussion of the t reatment of the pragrmat icf u n c t i o n s T o p i c a n d F o c u e i n F u n c t i o n a l G r a m m a r ( D i k : 1 9 8 9 , c h . 1 3 ) .Tv ro gues t ions w i I I be addressed : (a ) the theore t i ca l gues t ion o f howthe in te r face be tween the s ta t i c g ra rnmar (dea l i ng w i th a d i scourse asthe p roduc t o f t ex t - c rea t ing ac t i v i t y ; and the dynamic theory o fve rba l i n te rac t ion (dea l i ng w i th d i scourse as the ongo ing tex t -c rea t ing p rocess i t se l f ) i s hand led w i th regard to p ragmat i cfunc t ions ; and (b ) the p rac t i ca l gues t ion whe the r the reader o f D ik( 1 9 8 9 ) f i n d s a s e t o f p r o p o s a l s t h a t c a n b e o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d i n t h eana lys i s o f I i ngu is t i c ma te r ia l . I ^ l i t h regard to the fo rmer ques t ionwe conclude that in the present FG treatment of Topic and Focus, thestat ic and the dynamic approaches do not connect and thatr ds aresu l t , t he speaker ' s se lec t i on o f cons t i t uen ts fo r Top ic o r Focusfunc t ion i s l e f t unaccoun ted fo r . As fo r the second gues t ion , we showtha t D ik ' s p roposa l can be pu t i n to p rac t i ce , bu t tha t the resu l tan tana lys i s su f fe rs f rom a number o f i ncons is tenc ies and unc la r i t i es .F ina l l y , we a rgue tha t mos t o f t hese incons is tenc ies and unc la r i t i esc a n b e s o l v e d i f ( 1 ) w e a c c e p t a d i f f e r e n t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f F o c u s ,and (2 ) assume tha t Top ic ass ignment i s i r re levan t i n Eng l i sh , dsthe re i s no cons is ten t way in wh ich Top ic cons t i t uen ts a re g i venspec ia l t rea tmen t , and P1-p lacement can be accoun ted fo r w i thou thav ing to reso r t t o Top ic func t ion .

O. fn t roduc t ion '

w i t h t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f D i k ( 1 9 8 9 ) , l i n g u i s t s h a v eacquired a cogent and lucid presentat ion of the currents ta te o f Func t ionaL Grammar (FG) . The book prov ides abroad but also detai led coverage of a l I fundamentalaspec ts o f the mode l , so tha t i t w iL l be o f va lue no ton ly to theore t ic ians bu t a lso to those concerned w i ththe prac t ica l descr ip t ion o f Ianguages. In the presentar t i c le , w€ have been insp i red by the same dua l i t y o fpurpose: our argument is theoret ical in nature, but isd i rec ted above a I l a t p rac t i t ioners in our ambi t ion totest the extent to which one of the subsystems tre.ated inD i k ( L 9 8 9 ) c a n b e a p p l i e d i n t h e a c t u a l a n a l y s i s o f aIanguage. The subsystem in quest ion is pragmatic funct ion

'The research for th is paper was conducted in the

f ramework o f research pro jec t LETT 88/10 o f the FreeUniversi ty, Amsterdam, t Funct ional Language Research:Gramrnar and Pragnnat ics ' . We are grateful to Machtel tBo lkes te in , Chr is But le r , M ike Hannay and Mi r ian vanStaden fo r va luab le comments on an ear l ie r vers ion o fth is paper, and to an anonymous reader,

170 J. Lachlan Mackenzie and M. Evelien Keizer

ass ignment , and the language, Eng l ish .FG is conceived as being embedded within a wider

prag :mat ic theory o f verba l in te rac t ion (D ik l -989: L2) .Such a theory , the ou t l ines o f wh ich are beg inn ing toemergte in the pragmat ic l i terature , wi l t be des igned toaccount for the regular i t ies under ly ing the structured,coopera t ive , rea l - t i rne ac t iv i t ies o f language users , andwi l l be necessar i l y p rocedura l in o r ien ta t ion . I t w i lLconcern i t se l f w i th language users t p lans and goa ls ,their mot ivat ions and strategies, their problem-solv ingtechniques, their quest for contexts and for relevance.Cont r ibu t ions may be expec ted f rom spec ia l i s ts incogn i t i ve psycho logy and ar t i f i c ia l in te l l igence, f romanthropo logy and mic ro-soc io logy , f rom semio t ics andcommunicat ion theory, indeed from pragmatics in thewides t sense" A theory o f verba l in te rac t ion w i l l thus bea dynamic theory , a theory o f opera t ions and processes .

A granmar, oD the other hand, and FG is no except ion inth is respec t , has a fundamenta l l y d i f fe ren t o r ien ta t ion :i t seeks to descr ibe and explain the outcome ofoperat ions and processes rather than those operat ions andprocesses themse lves . I t i s s ta t i c , no t dynan ic , and isessent ia l l y a tempora l in i t s a t te rnp t to es tab l i shrelat ionships between ei ther v i r tual or at testedexpressions rather than fol low the ongoing product ion orin te rpre ta t ion o f u t te rances . f f there appear to becertain analogies between paths through the grammar andp laus ib le sequences o f events in l ingu is t i c p roduc t ion ,t h a t m a y i n c r e a s e t h e r r p s y c h o l o g i c a l a d e q u a c y r r o f t h emodel and i ts rrmodulesrr , but the grammar can claim nom o r e t h a n t o b e w r i t t e n i n a r r q u a s i - p r o d u c t i v e t r m o d e ( D i kl -989: 52) . The re la t ionsh ip be tween FG and the a I I -embracing theory of verbal interact ion is thusprob lemat ic in na ture , be ingstat ic and a dynamic systern.

Now , of a I I the var ious subcomponents of the g1rammar ,there are two which obviously stand at the interface withthe ambient theory of verbal interact ion: one is theana lys is o f the I ingu is t i c express ion as a speech ac t ,w i th an ind ica t ion o f i l l -ocu t i .onary f o rce be ingincorpora ted in to the representa t ion o f a c lause (D ikl - 9 8 9 : 2 4 8 ; 2 5 4 f f . ) ; t h e o t h e r , t o b e f o c u s e d o n i n t h epresent a r t i c le , i s the ass ignment o f p ragmat icfunc t ions . The very de f in i t ion o f p ragrmat ic func t i -ons , asspec i fy ing r r the i -n fo rmat iona l va lue o f d i f fe ren t par ts o fthe c l -ause, in reLat ion to the speaker ts es t imate o f the

an interface between a

On assigning pragmatic functions in Engtish I77

pragnnat ic inf ormat ion of the addresseefr (Dik 1989 : 60 ) ,nakes i t c lear that they are part ia l ly concerned with adynarnic quant i ty, i . e. one that can vary in t ime: thespeaker t s est imate of the pragimat ic inf orrnat ion of theaddressee.

I n t h e f o l l o w i n g p a g e s , w € w i l l s u b n i t D i k ' s ( 1 9 8 9 )proposals for the assignment of pragmatic funct ions( m a i n l y t o b e f o u n d i n C h . 1 3 , p p . 2 6 3 - 2 8 7 , b u t a l s o i nchapters on const i tuent order ing and prosodic features)to a careful examinat ion wi th respect to ( a ) thetheoret ical quest ion of how the interface between thestat ic granmar and the dynamic theory of verbalinteract ion is handl-ed with regard to pragrnat icfunct ionsl (b) the pract ical guest ion whether the readerf inds a se t o f p roposa ls tha t can be opera t ionaL ized inthe ana) .ys is o f l ingu is t i c mater ia l . In cons ider ing thesematters, we wi l l - l i rn i t ourselves to the two intra-clausalpragrmat ic funct ions and their subtypes, i . e. Topic andFocus .

The ar t i c le w i l l address th ree prob lems: f i rs t l y , theabsence of a l ink between relevant aspects of the theoryof verbal interact ion and the pragmatic funct ionassignment component of FG (Sf) i secondly, theirreconci labi l i ty of the Given-New and the Topic-Focusd i s t i n c t i o n s ( 5 2 ) ; t h i r d l y , t h e l a c k o f a n y r r s p e c i a l

t reatmentrr f or Topics in Engl ish ( S 3 ) . Having pointed outthe inpl icat ions of these problerns and drawn some novelconc lus ions , w€ cont inue (S4) by app ly ing the proposa lsfo r p ragrmat ic func t ion ass ignment found in D ik (1989) toThe Story o f Babar ; the app l ica t ion is success fu l , bu tprovides further evidence for the concLusions drawn inthe preced ing sec t ion .

1. The interface between FG and the theory of verbalinteract ion

The key not ion common both to a grammar incorporat ingpragrnat ic funct ion assignment and to a theory of verbalin te rac t ion is r rd iscourser r . Th is te rm, however , i sunderstood in two di f ferent ways, depending on whichapproach is taken, F i rs t l y , a d iscourse (usua l ly then acount noun) may be seen as the product of text-creat ingac t iv i t y ; a l te rna t ive ly , d iscourse (now usua l ly a massnoun) may be seen as the ongoing text-creat ing processi t s e l f .

I72 J. Lachlan Mackenzie and M. Evelien Keizer

Gramrnar ians, wi th their interest in the outcome ofreaL- t i rne opera t ions and processes , genera l l y take thef o r m e r v i e w . S o a l s o D i k ( 1 - 9 8 9 : 2 6 6 - 2 6 7 J , w h o i d e n t i f i e ss to r ies , mono logues, e tc . as d iscourses . He c i tes theproduc t o f h is own labours as an example , i . e . the bookhe has wri t ten, and i ts chapters, subsect ions, paragraphsand u l t imate ly i t s ind iv idua l c lauses a l l these ared iscourses , h ie rarch ica l l y o rgan ized w i th respec t to oneanother. Through the ident i f icat ion of the c lause as an in i -d iscourse , D ik pa in ts a p ic tu re o f a pyramid ica lstructure, wi th an uninterrupted rank scale f rom clauseto book .

Each d iscourse so ident i f ied s tands in a re la t ion o frr aboutness rr to an ent i ty or group of ent i t ies in somef f m e n t a l w o r l d f r ( s e e a l s o D i k l - 9 8 9 : 4 6 ) . T h e s e e n t i t i e sare terrned D-Topics, and have the property of topical i ty.D ik ( J -989 : 266) fu r ther recogn izes t t top ica l e lements r r ind iscourses . These are no t de f ined, bu t we take them to bethe part icular part or parts of each discourse thatis /a re re fe ren t ia lJ -y o r denota t iona l l y l inked to one ormore D-Top ics . Any o f these top ica l e lements may ( o r ,impor tan t ly , rdy no t ) be s ing led ou t r fo r spec ia lt reatment wi th respect to form, order or prosodicproper t ies . Th is s ing l ing-ou t i s opera t iona l i zed in Fc bythe assignment of one of the pragnnat ic funct ions Topic orFocus. These have corresponding ef fects on the operat ionof the express ion ru les . Note , dS a d i f f i cu l ty , tha ttop ica l e lements a re thus de termined per d iscourse (wh ichmay be rnuch longer than a c lause) , wh i le p ragmat icfunc t ions are ass igned per c lause.

Alongside this granmariant s approach to discourses asthe ou tcome o f verba l ac t i v i t y , D ik ( L989 : 267 , f rom5 1 3 . 3 , p a r . 2 o n w a r d s ) a l s o a d o p t s a v i e w o f d i s c o u r s e a san ongo ing tex t -c rea t ing process . Here he suggests tha tas each s t re tch o f d iscourse2 un f o lds , so a | t top ic

s to rer r , in some unspec i f ied abs t rac t sense, i s t tg radua l ly

f i1 led w i th D-Top ics as these are in t roducedr f . Wetake i t that the unment ioned agent of the two passj-ves inthe quota t ion is the speaker /wr i te r , d t work in rea l

rA ques t ion we w i l l re tu rn to i s : s inq led ou t bywhom?

2Here , w€ assume,s t re tches cons iderab ly

d iscourse is taken to cor respond toIonger than one c lause.

On assigning pragmatic functions in English 173

t i rne . As Dik t s presentat ion cont inues , i t becomesincreasingly manifest that he does indeed intend thereader to i rnaqine discourse product ion in real t ime: rr . . .at some point for the f i rst t ime then go ont o t a l k a b o u t . . . r r ( L 9 8 9 , S l - 3 . 3 , p a r . 3 ) .

Thus , in one and the same sec t ion l -3 .3 , D ik bo th c la imsthat D-Topics are phenomena that can be recognizedretrospect ively by the gramrnar ian and assumes that thespeaker /wr i te r has D-Top ics a t her d isposa l , ready to bernarsha l led in ongo ing d iscourse . Here , then, the readerf inds h inse l f a t the cu t t ing edge, r igh t up aga ins t theinterface between FG and the ambient theory of verbalin te rac t ion . The no t ion o f D-Top ic i s , to judge by D ik( 1 9 8 9 : 2 6 7 , n . 5 ) , i n s p i r e d a b o v e a l l - b y B r o w n a n d Y u I e( L 9 8 3 : 7 1 ) . T h e s e w r i t e r s , h o w e v e r , d i f f e r f r o m D i k i ntak ing an exc lus ive ly p rocess v iew on d iscourse (a lwaysused as a mass noun in the i r book) . Indeed, they ins is tthat the not ion of a speaker having D-Topics at herd isposa l o f fe rs an unrea l i s t i c ou t look on d iscourseproduct ion. Rather, they are interested in rr the generalpretheoret ical not ion of t r topicrr r f as f rwhat is beingtalked about ' r in a conversat ion. They further f ind i tun l i ke ly tha t the i r no t ion o f a d iscourse top ic w i l l beident i f iabl-e wi th one part of a sentence. Brown andYuIe 's d iscourse top ic i s thus in essent ia l respec tsd i f fe ren t f rom Dik 's en t i t y -based no t ion w i th i t s i rnp l iedcor respondence w i th senten t ia l cons t i tuents .3

The quest ion now ar j -ses whether the real- t ime approachto pragrmat ic funct ion assignrnent taken by Dik on p. 267is conceptua l l y compat ib le w i th most o f the res t o f FG,which takes the grarnmat ical ly respectabLe retrospect ivev iew o f language s t ruc tu re . As a mode l , FG is o f coursecharac ter ized by a f rquas i -p roduc t ive moder r , be ing b iasedtowards product ion rather than comprehension, but notb e i n g d e s i g n e d r r n e c e s s a r i l y I t o ] s j - m u l a t e t h e v a r i o u ssteps that a speaker takes in producing I inguist ice x p r e s s i o n s t t ( 1 9 8 9 : 5 2 ) . f n D i k ' s a c c o u n t o f t h eassignment of pragmatic funct ions, however, he appears no

3It is not unl ikely that the very exampl-es Dik andBrown & Yu le choose lead to d i f fe ren t conc lus ions : D ikconsiders his own book, a highly structured andthorough ly p lanned wr i t ten d iscourse , wh i le Brown & Yu leconcent ra te on in fo rmal conversa t ions and has t i l ycomposed memoranda.

174 J. Lachlan Mackenzie and M. Evelien Keizer

longer to observe a quasi-productive mode but rather toprovide the erements of a theory of ongoing product ion.To our v iew, th is d is tu rbs the conceptuar un i ty o f themode l , a po in t to wh ich we w i l l re tu rn in 52 , on theincompat ib i l i t y o f the pa i rs G iven-New and Top ic -Focus .

The central issue, f rom our perspect ive, concerns therelat ion between the range of avai labre D-Topics and theinstances of Topic assignment in the correspbnding text .Given that topical e lernents are deternined p"r d iscourse( in the crause-to-book sense adumbrated above) , whi l -epragmat ic func t ions are ass igned per c lause, how is i tdetermined which of the avai labre topicar erements ischosen as Topic? Let us consider whether ei ther of thetwo perspect ives taken, the retrospect ive v iew of thegrammar ian or the d iscourse ana lys t rs in te res t in ongo ingprocesses , o f fe rs an answer .

Look ing re t rospec t ivery a t d iscourses as produc tsra ther than processes , and spec i f i ca l ry a t ind iv idua ls e n t e n c e s , D i k ( L 9 8 9 : 2 6 8 f f . ) p r o v i d e s a s e t o f c r i t e r i awith which to ident i fy a Topic, and further tosubc lass i fy Top ics in to four c rasses . By spec i fy ingvar ious k inds o f spec ia l t rea tment Top ics may rece ive , n "o f fe rs the prac t is ing l ingu is t gu idance in de termin ingwhether to ass ign Top ic o r no t . As fo r the s ing l ing-ou tof topicar erements referred to above, w€ understandDik 's pos i t ion to be tha t i t i s no t the speaker /wr i te rwho singres out elements for pragrmat ic funct ionass ig rnment , bu t the ana l .ys t . r t i s he who a l loca tesTop ic , Focus , e tc . to cons t i tuents in representa t ions .But h is c r i te r ia fo r so do ing remain obscure .

The o ther tack taken by D ik , wh ich fo l lows the rear -t i rne product ion of ut terances j ,n discourse, appears too f f e r a b o v e a l l a c r a s s i f i c a t i o n o f D - T o p i c s ( i . e .en t i t ies ) in te rms o f the resu l t o f the i r be ingm e n t i o n e d . N o t e v e r y t h i n g i s f u l l y c l e a r ( s e c . t - 3 . 3 , 5 3 ) athe f i rst presentat ion of a D-Topic is termed a NewToppaan .en t i t y so in t roduced is a G ivTop (G iven rop iC; ;s im i la r ly , d r en t i t y tha t i s ment ioned, tempor l r i l yneglected and later revived is termed a ResTop (ResurnedTop ic ) . Le t us conc lude, however , tha t what i s in tendedi s a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f t h e e n t i t i e s h e l d i n t h e s t o r e o f

aNew Top ic ; fo r de ta i l s o f th is func t ion , and ar r theothers in t roduced in D ik ( 1 -989 : ch . 13 ) see sec t ion zb e l o w .

D-Topics in terrns of their h istory of use incor respond ing d iscourse .what nei ther

_ perspect ive of fers the reader isunders tand ing o f the speaker /wr i te r ,s mot iva t ion inchoosing one term rather than another as Topic of apar t i cu la r u t te rance in d iscourse . - we ber ieve tha t th isis the rnissingr and vi ta] l ink between the twoperspect ives adopted, between the two views of languageas product ur,g language as process . on the one hand, thegranmar ian 's backwara- loox i ig v iew takes us on ly as fa rback in t i rne as the form that resurts f rom product ion. onthe o ther , the d iscourse ana lys t ' s fo rward- look ing v iewfa i rs to make t l . . jump f rom t i re a r ranqement o f D-Top icsto the ac tuar cho ice " r

Top ic . Th ; on ly connect ion tha tis achieved is f eedback r ion cnoice - ' " r - - i "p i -"

to thecLass i f i ca t ion o f the s to re o f D-Top ics . rn - iu t r ine ,

\ ^ /es e e t h e i n t e r f a c e a s f o l l o w s :

Figure 1

On assigning pragmatic functions in English 175

utterance

D-Top ics o f Top ic

lll_

The purpose o f th is sec t ion has been to d raw a t ten t ionto the two l ines of approach taken by Dik ( 1-989 ) todiscourse and to the u=-=ig. t*"" t -" i

pragmatic funct ions.our f inding is that the two r- ines do n_ot m9et, that a gapar ises be tween the se t o f D-Top ics , c lass i f ied in v i r tueof the i r use , and the ac tua l cho ice o f top ic made by thespeaker /wr i te r per c lause.we note, however, that an at ternpt to br idge the gap hasbeen made in a recent contr ib i r t ion to FG by Hannay( L 9 9 0 ) . H a n n a y . a d o p t s a c l e a r l y p r o c e s s - o r i - e n t e dapproach, d is t ingu ish ing a number o f i t r . i "q i "= ava i labr -eto the speaker fo r convey ing in rorna t ion . rn h is v iew,there are f i ve modes o f message manaqement , each o f wh ichinduces d is t inc t

_ ass ignments o f Top ic and Focus . suchwork aims to suppry th; mi.ssing r inxi i - t ="gg"=t= how thespeaker ' s cho ice o f Top ic r -uy u" cons t r l ined , wh i le

176 J. Lachlan Mackenzie and M. Evetien Keizer

offer ing the anaryst crear cr i ter ia for recogni zLng theef fec ts o f such a cho ice . Th is approach, based as i t i son strategies, rnakes serect ion of Topic dependent uponthe speaker 's communi-cat ive goals . we should not f orget,however, that not only such goal-s but also language-spec i f i c cons t ra in ts may i i r f luence Top ic -se lec t ions t ra teg ies , as in Hungar ian , where , accord ing to D ik( 1 9 8 9 : 3 6 3 ) , f o l l o w i n g D e G r o o t ( L 9 8 1 - : 4 5 ) , p l _ c a nharbour one or more Top ic cons t i tuents .5 Thus , thespeaker 's ass ignment o f Top ic and indeed o f p ragmat icfunc t ions genera l l y w i l l a lways be a mat te r o fbalancing her needs with the speci f ic requirements of thelanguage in wh ich she expresses herse l f .

2 .

2 . O

Topic and Focus funct ion and the Given-Newdis t inc t ion

Introduct ion

After th is generaJ- assessment of the approach taken byDik ( 1989 ) to d iscourse and to p ragrnat ic func t j .onass ignment , le t us tu rn our a t ten t ion to h is p roposarsconcerning the di f ferent types of pragmatic funct ions.D i k ( 1 9 8 9 : 2 6 5 f f ) c o m b i n e s i n h i s c l a u s e - i n t e r n a lpragmatic funct ions informat ion concerning the Topichood-Focushood of an ent i ty and i ts Given-New status. Thusinstead of the one-dimensional pragmatic funct ions Topicand Focus (c f . D ik l -978 ) , he o f f e rs us the f o r low ingrange o f hybr id p ragmat ic func t ions : G iven Top ic , Sub-Top ic , New Top ic , and Resumed Top ic l New Focus andCont ras t ive Focus .

The exact relat ion between the Topic-Focus and Given-New d is t inc t ions remains , however , unspec i_ f ied . What i scertain is that the pragrmat ic funct ion Topic wir l beass igned to top ica l e rements tha t a re s ingred ou t fo rspec ia r t rea tment , the pragmat ic func t ion Focus to foca le lements s ing led ou t fo r spec ia l t rea tment , and tha tthere is a t tpar t ia l cor respondencer r be tween the

5An in te res t ing research ques t ion wou ld be todetermine, for cases in Hungar ian where more than oneTop ic i s chosen, wh ich cor respond ing te rm wou ld be chosenf o r Top ic ass i -gnment in Eng l ish , g iven the samecommunica t ive se t t ing and goa ls .

On assigning pragmatic functions in English 177

dirnensions of topicar i ty and focar i ty on the one hand andthe Given-New d is t inc t ion on the o ther (D ik l_999: 266) .The correspondence presumably resul- ts f rorn the fact thatboth the topical i ty- focar i ty and the Given-Newdis t inc t ions are de f in i t iona l - ry re la ted (e i therexpr ic i tLy or inpl ic i t ly) to the not ion pragrrnat icinforrnat ion, and is ref lected in the fact that topicalerements tend to be given, whi le focal eLements aretypical ly nehr. The coire=pondence is , however, by noneans compre te : as w i l l be c lear f rom the l i s t o f hybr idpragrmat ic funct ions, topica] e lements may in fact be nev/,and focar erements may be given. And since Topic andFocus func t ion are on ly ass igned to cer ta in top ica l andfocal e lements those singled out for special t reatrnent

the correspondence between Topichood-Focushood and.Givenness-Newness may be expected to be even morer rpar t ia l r f .

rn the res t o f th is sec t ion , w€ w i l l f i r s t o f a t l g ivea sunmary of the var ious subtypes of Topic and Focusproposed by Dik, and of the special t reatment these areg iven across languages. second ly , we w i r r d iscuss in somedetai l the di f ferences between the pragmatic funct ionsTop ic and Focus and the Given-New d is t inc t ion . F inar ry wewi l l draw at tent ion to a number of probrerns theprac t is ing l ingu is t may encounter in the appr ica t ion o fthe pragmatic funct ions Topic and Focus in Engr ish,problems ar is ing f rom the combinat ion of two essent ia l lydi f f erent prag.rnat ic dimensions into one set of cornprexpragrmat ic funct ions.

2 .L Types o f Top ic and Focus

The pragnat ic funct ion Topic is div ided into foursubtypes . F i rs t o f a l r , there are New Top ics (NewTops) .These are descr ibed as I ' the f i r s t p resenta t ion o f a D-Top ic f ' (D ik 1 ,989 : 267 ) ; they in t roduce a top ica l en t i t yinto the discourse. As such, NewTops are at one and thasane t ime topical ( in that they introduce a topicalen t i t y in to the d iscourse) and foca l ( in tha t theyin t roduce th is en t i t y ; D ik 1989 z 269) . The i r fo rna lpropert ies incrude a strong preference for taking l -ate( o r a t r e a s t n o n - i n i t i a l ) p o s i t i o n i n t h e c l a u s e , a n d , i nthe spoken language, p rosod ic p rominence. Thus , inchapter l -B (D ik , 1989: 391- ) we read tha t , the NewTopconst i tuent captures the most prominent accent of the

178 J. Lachlan Mackenzie and M. Evelien Keizer

express ion t r . The fo l low i .ngr sentences i l l us t ra te the k indof cons t ruc t ion typ ica l ty used to in t roduce a NewTop:

( 1 ) r 'm going to te l L you a story about an eTephantcal- l -ed Jumbo (NewTop) (Dik j -999 z 268)

(2) SuddenJ-y, r ight bef ore our eyes , there appeared ahuge eTephant (NewTop) ( ib id . )

once an ent i ty has been introduced into the discourseby means of a NewTop, i t can be treated as a Given Topic(GivTop) in the subsequent discourS€,6 where i t must berrkept al ivefr through repeated ref erence. The grammatical

means ava i lab le fo r ma in ta in ing a G ivTop inc ludeanaphor ic re fe rence, syn tac t ic parar re l i s rn , sw i tchre f e rence and obv ia t ion (D ik l -989 z 27 L-27 5) . As f a r astheir prosodic features in the spoken language areconcerned, GivTops are not t reated in any speciar way:they have no accentuar prominence (unress contrasted Los o m e o t h e r G i v T o p ; s e e D i k L 9 8 9 : 3 9 1 ) , F i n a l l y , G i v T o p scan be given specia r t reatrnent wi th respect to ordLr(pos i t ion in the c rause) . rn chapter 13 no rnent ion ismade o f a spec ia r pos i t ion fo r G ivTops, bu t in chapter 16(on cons t i tuent o rder ) we f ind the fo l low ing "spec i f i cp r i n c i p l e ' r ( D i k , 1 _ 9 8 9 : 3 4 g f ) :

s P 4 : T h e r e i s a u n i v e r s a r r y r e r e v a n t c l a u s e - i n i t i a lpos i t ion P1, used fo r spec ia l purposes , inc lud ingthe pracement o f cons t i tuents w i th Top ic o r Focusfunc t ion .

The genera l pa t te rn fo r the uses made o f p l - i s descr ibeda s f o l l o w s :

6There appear to be cases where Given Topics are not(d i rec t l y ) in t roduced by New Top ics , bu t by sub-Top ics .r f the sub-Top ic in ques t ion is in t roduced by (o r ra therinf errabl-e f rom) a New Topic, one might s ly that theGiven Topic is indirect ly introduced by that New Topic.H o w e v e r , d s w e w i l l s e e l a t e r ( s e c t i o n 2 . 3 ) , s u b - T o p i c sneed no t be in fe r rab le f rom New Top ics . rn tha t case theGiven Top ic i s p roper ly in t roduced by the Sub-Top ic .

On assigning pragmatic functions in English 179

( i ) Languages of ten have designated categor ies ofconst i tuents which must be placed in p1 [ InEng l ish : Q-words , subord ina tors , re la t i ve p ronouns l

( i i ) r f P l i s no t occup ied by some p t -cons t i tuent , i tmay be used for const i tuents wi th (Given) TopicT orFocus func t ion .

The fol lowing text provides an example of a Topic chain(w i th G ivTops, in the fo r rn o f anaphors , appear ing in p l )

(3 ) Yes terday f go t a phone(NewTop) . He /The nan/Thecome to h is o f f i ce , andimpression that I \^/as in2 7 L )

cal l f rom the tax inspectorjoker (GivTop) wanted me to

he/Q (GivTop) gave me thef o r some t roub le (D ik t_989:

The third type of Topic is the Sub-Topic (SubTop) .subrop funct ion is assigned to those ent i t ies that behaveas i f they had been expl ic i tJ-y introduced into thed iscourse ( i . e . they behave l i ke G ivTops) , bu t wh ichinstead are inferred from a GivTop (or NewTop) on thebasis of our knowledge of what is normal ly the case int h e w o r l - d ( D i k 1 9 8 9 : 2 6 7 , 2 7 s , . S i n c e t h e y b e h a v e a s i fthey had been introduced into the discourse, we mayassume that subTops receive the same special t reatment asGivTops, except that in the spoken language they wit rt f typicafryt ' have some degree of accentual prominence (onaccount of their having something nnewrf andr r c o n t r a s t i v e r r , D i k i - 9 9 9 : 3 9 1 ) . S e n t e n c e s ( 4 ) a n d ( 5 )provide some typical examples of SubTops.

(4) John gave a party (NewTop) last week, but the music( S u b T o p ) w a s a w f u l . ( D i k i - 9 8 9 : 2 7 5 )

(5) Mary got some picnic suppJres (NewTop) out of thec a r . T h e b e e r ( S u b T o p ) w a s w a r m . ( D i k 1 9 8 9 : 2 7 6 )

TNot

be foundthat thei t musttyp ica l l y

on ly G iven, bu t a lso Sub- and Resumed Top ics canin P1. The res t r i c t ion , there fore , i s sureJ_y no telement must have Given Topic funct ion, but thatno t have New Top ic func t ion (s ince these arep l a c e d i n n o n - i n i t i a l p o s i t i o n ) .

180 J. Lachlan Mackenzie and M. Et'elien Keizer

The f inal subtype is that of Resumed Topics. ResTopsare GivTops that have not been ment ioned for some t i rne inthe d iscourse . Thus , in add i t ion to the i r oh /n typ ica lpropert ies ( strong anaphor ic reference, indicat ion

- that

the en t i t y has been ment ioned be fore , and, r i ke subTops,I t typj-calryt t a degree of accentuar prominence in Lnespoken language) , they wi l l receive the same specialt rea tment as G ivTops (D ik 1999 : 277 ' ) . sen tence ( 6 )p rov ides a typ ica l example :

( 6 ) John had a brother peter (NewTop) and a sister t4ary( N e w T o p ) . P e t e r . . . t c o n s i d e r a b r e e p i s o d e a b o u t p e t e r l .Now, John' s srster Irary, who r mentioned bef ore .

-. .

( R e s T o p ) ( D i k 1 9 8 9 : 2 2 7 )

The pragrmat ic funct ion Focus has also been div ided intoseverar types wh ich are po ten t ia r ly re revant fo r theana lys is o f na tura l languages. F i rs t o f a I1 , adist inct ion is made between New (or compJ-et ive) Focus(NewFoc) and contrast ive Focus (contrFoc) . NewFoc is whatwe f ind in ques t ion-answer pa i rs such as the fo r low ing :

( 7 ) X : W h e r e i s J o h n g o i n g ?Y: (a ) John is go ing to the marke t (NewFoc)

( b ) T o t h e m a r k e t ( N e w F o c ) ( D i k 1 9 8 9 2 2 7 9 )

NewFoc is thus ass igned to those p ieces o f in fo rmat ionthat are assumed to be cornpletely new to the addressee.However , Focus in fo rmat ion need no t be en t i re ly new; i tmay arso inc lude in fo rmat ion ar ready assumed to beava i rabre to the addressee, bu t focused on by v i r tue o fsome impr ic i t o r expr ic i t con t ras t . rn tha t case we speakof cont rFoc , o f wh ich there are two types . The f i rs t o fthese is ParaL le l Focus (parFoc ; example (B) ) ; the secondtype is counter-presupposi t ional Focus, which in turn issubd iv ided in to Rep lac ing Focus (RepFoc) , Expand ing Focus(ExpFoc) , Res t r i c t ing Focus (Rest rFoc) and serec t ingF o c u s ( S e l F o c ) ( e x a n p l e s ( 9 ) - ( 1 2 ) ) .

On assigning pragmatic functions in English 181

(8 ) John and B i l I came to see me. John (ParFoc) wasn ice , bu t B iT I (ParFoc) was bor ing . (D ik 1"9892 2781

( 9 ) X: John bought cof fee .Y : N o , h e b o u g h t r i c e . ( R e p F o c ) ( D i k 1 9 8 9 : . 2 8 3 )

(10) X : John bought co f fee .Y: Yes , bu t he a lso bought r i ce . (ExpFoc) (D ik

l - 9 8 9 z 2 8 4 )(11) X : John bought co f fee and r i ce .

Y: No, he on ly bought co t tee . (Res t rFoc) ( ib id . )(L2) X : Wou ld you l i ke co f fee or tea?

Y : C o f f e e ( S e I F o c ) , p l e a s e . ( i b i d . )

wi th regard to special t reatment, Focus funct ion maymani fes t i t se l f (c ross- l ingu is t i ca l l y speak ing) th roughone or more o f the fo l low ing focaL iz ing dev ices (D ikl - 9 8 9 : 2 7 8 ) :

( i ) p rosod ic p rominence: e rnphat ic accent I in the spokenIanguage l

( i i ) spec ia l cons t i tuent o rder( i i i ) spec ia l Focus markers( iv ) spec ia l Focus cons t ruc t ions ( to be d iscussed in D ik

( for thconing) )

The f i rs t o f these, p rosod ic p rominence, i s the mostcommon foca l i z ing dev ice . In Eng l ish i t app l ies to bo thNew ( Cornplet ive) Focus and to aI l types of ContrFoc(Para I le I , Rep lac ing , Expand ing , Res t r i c t ing , Se lec t inq) .In addi t ion, Focus const i tuents may appear in Pl ; unl ikeTopic const i tuents, they must have prosodic prominence.

2.2 Di f ferences between Topic-Focus and Given-New

We already noted that the correspondence between thepragrnat ic funct ions Topic and Focus and the dimensionsGiven and New is on ly par t ia l . fn what fo lLows we w i l lmaintain that the two pairs of not ions correspond only inthat they are both pragunat ic in nature, i .e. they concernthe in fo rmat iona l s ta tus o f d iscourse e lements inr e l a t i o n t o t h e r r w i d e r c o m m u n i c a t i v e s e t t i n g f r i n w h i c hthey are used which in turn can be understood in termsof the addressee's pragmatic informat ion at the moment ofspeak ing (D ik l -989: 265) . Apar t f rom be ing pragrmat ic innature , the two pa i rs o f no t ions are , as we w i l l show,essent ia l l y d i f fe ren t ; even to the ex ten t tha t i t i s

182 J. Lachlan Mackenzie and M. Ev'elien Keizer

doubtful whether they should (or can) be combined intoone set of complex pragrmat ic funct ions.

Le t us f i rs t o f a l l look a t the way these no t ions aredef ined. In bo th cases re fe rence is made (exp l i c i t l y o rimp l ic i t l y ) to the te rm pragmat ic in fo rmat ion , i . e . toI ' the fu I1 body o f knowledge, be l ie f s , assumpt ions ,op in ions and f ee l - ings ava i labLe to an ind iv idua l - a t anypo in t in the in te rac t ionr f (D ik L989: 9 ) . The no t ionsGiven and New are def ined in terms of what is assumed tobe par t o f o r in fe r rab le f rom a person 's p ragmat icin fo rmat ion (D ik 1989: 265-266) . The pragmat ic func t ionsTop ic and Focus , oD the o ther hand, a re de f ined in te rmsof r f spec ia l t rea t rnent r r : they are ass igned to thosetop ica l and f oca l e lements t ts ing led ou t f o r spec ia lt reatment wi th regard to form, order and prosodicp r o p e r t i e s r r ( D i k 1 9 8 9 : 2 6 6 ) . T o p i c a l e l e m e n t s a r e t h o s eelements rr r raboutrr which inf orrnat ion is given in thed iscourser t ; foca l - eLements a re r r those p ieces o finformat ion which are the most important or sal ient wi threspec t to the rnod i f i ca t ions wh ich the speaker wants toef f ect in the pragrrnat ic inf ormat ion of the addresseer l( i b i d . ) .

Thus , un l i ke the no t ions Given and New, Top ic and Focusass ignment invo lve a se lec t ion f rom the ava i lab l -e top ica land f ocal eLements. This imrnediateJ-y leads to adi f ference between the two not ions wi th regard to theprob lem noted in S l - . Whi le in the case o f Top ic and Focusass ignment the ' fa i lu re to f i l l the gap be tween theava i lab le top ica l and foca l e lements and the ass ignmentof Topic and Focus funct ion made i t impossible for thetwo views of d iscourse as the product of text-creat ingrac t iv i t y and as the ongo ing tex t -p rocess i t se l f toconnect , th is p rob lem does no t a r ise in the case o f theGiven-New d is t inc t ion . For a l though g iven and newelements a re typ ica l l y expressed in such a way as tore f lec t the i r (assumed) G iven-New s ta tus ( in accordancewi th C lark and Hav i land 's (1977 ) r rG iven-New Cont rac t " ) ,ass igning Given or New status to an el-ement does notinvo lve any t ts ingJ- ing ou t r r o f e lements f o r spec ia lt rea tment . As a resu l t there is no t t rn iss i -ng l - ink t t : thetwo v iews o f d iscourse are per f ec t l y reconc i lab l -e . Theoutcome of the text-creat ing process, whJ-ch the grammarseeks to descr ibe and exp la in , may be seen as(super f i c ia l l y ) re f lec t ing the tex t -c rea t ing processi tse l f , and i lpsycho log ica l adequacy" i s a t ta ined.

Another compl icat ing factor is that the Given-New

On assigning pragmatic functions in English 183

dist inct ion is not a s i rnple, uni tary phenomenon; todist inguish merely between Given and New is to disregardthe cornplexi ty of these not ions. This conplexi ty is f i rstof a lL ref lected in the fact that the dist inct ion betweenGiven and New can be made a t var ious leve ls . Thus , G ivenhas been def ined ( in the narrowest sense) in terms ofthat which can be assumed to be in the consciousness ofthe addressee a t the t i rne o f speak ing (Chafe L976 ' ) . fn asomewhat wider sense it includes that which isrrrecoverable f rom the discourserr (Hal l iday and HasanL97 6 , Ha l - I iday L985 ) , tha t wh ich is r rac t i va ted in thed iscourser r (Brown and YuLe l -983 ) o r tha t wh ich isr rd iscourse-boundr r (Hannay 1 ,985a) . In i t s b roadest sense,givenness is def ined in terms of what is assumed to bepart of knowledge shared by speaker and addressee (Clarka n d H a v i l a n d L 9 7 7 , P r i n c e 1 9 8 1 ) . D i k c l e a r l y o p t s f o r t h ebroadest in te rpre ta t ion : he de f ines the d is t inc t ion inte rms o f the speaker 's es t imate o f the addressee 'spragmatic informat ion. This means that Given and New mustbe understood not merely in terms of what is in theaddresseets consc iousness , o r even in the d iscourse , bu tin the addressee 's t t fu l l body o f knowledget t .

Th is r r fu l l - body o f knowledg€t t , a person 's p ragrnat icin fo r rna t , ion , cons is ts o f th ree components (D ik 1989: 9 ) :

general informat ion: long-terrn informat ion concerningthe world, i ts natural and cul tural features, and otherposs ib le o r imag inary wor ldssi tuat ional inforrnat ion: informat ion der ived from whatthe part ic ipants perceive or otherwise exper ience inthe s i tua t ion in wh ich the in te rac t ion takes p lacecontextual informat ion: informat ion der ived from thel inguist ic expressions which are exchanged before oraf ter any given point in the verbal interact ion

From th is i t fo l lows tha t , I i ke p ragmat ic in fo rmat ion ,given informat ion can also be div ided into three types.Thus , w€ can d is t ingu ish be tween d iscourse en t i t ies tha tare r rContex tua l l y G ivenr r (as in example ( 13 ) ) ,' f S i t u a t i o n a l l y G i v e n r r ( e x a m p l e ( 1 4 ) ) , a n d r r G e n e r a l l y

G i v e n r r ( e x a m p l e ( 1 5 ) ) :

( 13 ) I sa\^/ Mary yesterday. She told me she had bought an e w c a r .

( 1 4 ) C o u l d y o u p a s s m e t h e s a T t p l e a s e .(15) The Pr ime l [ in is te r has jus t res igned.

184 J. Lachlan Mackenzie and M. Evelien Keizer

The fac t tha t in examples (14) and (15) the erements thesal t and the Pr ime tr in ister are at the same t ime given( s i tua t iona l l y and genera lJ -y , respec t ive ly ) and new(contextualry) shows that i t is not enough to dist inguishmerely between Given and New.

Another reason for dist inguishing di f ferent types ofgj-venness is that there seems to be a di f ference inrrdegree of g ivenness tr between the var ious types . Thus ,a c c o r d i n g t o . P r i n c e , s ( 1 9 8 1 ) F a m i r i a r i t y s c a r e , g e n e r a r l yg iven en t i t ies (Pr ince 's unused en t i t ies ) have a lowerdegree o f g ivenness than contex tua l l y and s i tua t iona l l ygiven ent i t ies . Moreover , according t-o what cruse ( r_9 g o jcar ls the i lorder: of precedenceff among the var ious types,s i tua t ionar ry g iven en t i t ies a re i ; tu rn , ress g ivennthan contextuarry given ent i t ies. Thus, whenever a termhas two poss ib le re fe ren ts , one in t roduced contex tua l l y ,the o ther s i tua t ionar ry , the in tended (and cnosen ireferent wi l l normal ly be the one introduced by means ohthe context . s imi rar ly , when the referent of a term canbe re t r ieved f rom the s i tua t ion or f rom the addressee 'sgenera l knowledge, i t w i l l normal ly be re t r ieved f rom thes i tua t ion . Th is d i f fe rence in degree o f g ivenness isre f lec ted in the way the d i f fe ren t types o f en t i t ies canbe pronominar i zed : con tex tua l l y g iven en t i t ies can bere fer red to by means o f bo th anaphor ic and de ic t i cpronouns, s i tua t ionar ry g iven en t i t ies onry by means o fde ic t i c p ronouns, wh i re re f e rence to a qenera t l_y g ivenent i t y a lways requ i res the use o f a tu r r aesc f ip€ io . , .Moreover , i t appears tha t in cer ta in languages ( " . g . thescandinavian ranguages) as werr as in t nurnber ofd ia lec ts ( the Fr is ian d ia lec t Fer ing , the German d ia rec tAmern) there are two di f ferent forms of the def in i tear t i c re , one o f wh ich is used w i th tex tua l ry o rs i tua t ionar ly g iven en t i t ies , the o ther w i th generar ryg i v e n o r i n f e r r a b l - e e n t i t i e s ( E b e r t 1 9 7 0 ) .

rn o ther words , there is su f f i c ien t ev idence to suggesttha t a d is t inc t ion be tween d i f fe ren t types o f g iven andnew is necessary . However , Do such d is t inc t ion is made inthe two-dimensionar pragrmat ic funct ions proposed by Dik:Top ics a re e i ther g iven , in fe r rabre or new; Focuserements a re e i ther new or g iven (cont ras t ive) . Tocompl icate matters even further , topical i ty ( aprerequ is i te fo r Top ichood) i s de f ined as charac ter iz ingthose en t i t ies about wh ich in fo rmat ion is p rov ided in th ;d iscourse l foca l i t y (a p rerequ is i te fo r Focushood) asattaching to those pieces of informat ion that are the

On assigni.ng pragmatic functions in English 185

most saLient wi th regard to the addressee's pragirnat icinf orrnat ion. In other words, candidates f or Topicfunct ion must be drawn from the discourse ( textual and,poss ib ly , s i tua t ionaL in fo rmat ion) ; Focus func t ion , onthe other hand, is assigned to the most sal- ientinformat ion in the c lause, i r respect ive of whether i tconcerns tex tua l , s i tua t iona l o r genera l in fo rmat ion . Inthe nex t sec t ion (SZ.a1 some o f the consequences o f thesed iscrepanc ies w i l l be i l l us t ra ted .

A f inal d i f ference between Topichood on the one handand Given-New status ( and Focushood) on the otherconcerns the fact that whereas Given-New status (andFocus funct ion) can be assigned to terms and predicates(and combina t ions o f the two) a1 ike , Top ic func t ion canon ly be ass igned to express ions re fe r r ing to d iscourseent i t ies ( inc lud ing te rms) . Th is d i f fe rence, wh ich wetake to have been inherent in Fc s ince i ts incept ion,fo l lows frorn the c la im that topical i ty character izesent i t ies wh i le foca l i t y a t taches to p ieces o f in fo rmat ion(D ik L989 z 256) . As a resu l t , G ivTops can on ly beintroduced by other ent i t ies (NewTops) , and SubTops onlyin fe r red f rom o ther en t i t ies (NewTops or G ivTops) .However, a person's pragrmat ic informat ion consists ofnore than a l i s t o f d iscourse en t i t ies . I t inc ludes aperson 's fu1 I body o f knowledge, be l ie fs , fee l ings e tc .a t a par t i cu la r moment ; i .e . no t on ly en t i t ies , bu t a l -soproper t ies o f those en t i t ies , re la t ions be tween d i f fe ren ten t i t ies , SoAs in wh ich those en t i t ies p lay a ro le , e tc .Th is knowledge w i I I in par t be spec i f i c knowledge o fpart icular ent i t ies and events r ' but in part i t wi lLorganized in general knowledge structures relat ingr topart icular k inds of ent i t ies and events, constructed onthe bas is o f p r io r exper iences . In add i t ion , ourpragmatic i -nf ormat ion contains plans and goal-s,no t iva t ions and s t ra teg ies , e tc . Comprehens ion o f adiscourse involves act ivat ion of and drawing inferencesfron Iarge parts of th is knowledge. The fol lowing examplei l lustrates both the number and the di f ferent k inds ofinferences that need to be drawn to comprehend even thes inp les t messages:

(16) (Mary and John aresays to John: )Pass me the cereaT,

having breakfast together. Mary

p l e a s e . ( L o b n e r , 1 9 8 5 : 3 1 9 )

The def in i te term the cereaL may in fact have a number of

186 J. Lachlan Mackenzie and M. Evelien Keizer

possible referents: both Mary and John may have cereal onthe i r p la tes , there w i l l be cerea l in the pack (o r packs)on the tabLe, and there may even be a spare pack on asheLf nearby. Nevertheless John may be expected to knowwhich cereal to pass on account of h is knowledge of whatpeop le ( in genera l , o r Mary and he in par t i cu la r ) usua l lydo in s in i la r s i tua t ions , h is knowledge o f Mary / s goa lsand mot ivat ions, and his knowledge of her preference fora par t i cu la r k ind o f cerea l . L ikewise , in the fo l low ingexample, there may be more than one window, only one ofwh ich is open. The re fe rence is , there fore , unambiguous,but only on account of the use of the predicate cTose incombinat ion wi th the knowledge that only open windows canb e c l o s e d .

( 17 ) Could you close the window, please?

It wi l - l be c lear that understanding discourse dependsfor a large part on act ivat ion of and drawing inferencesfrom whatever pragrmat ic inf ormat ion we have avai lable.This inevi tably means that many pieces of informat ion maybe assumed to be given or inferrable on account of th isinformat ion (and wiI I be t reated as such) which do notqua l i f y fo r Top ichood, e i ther because the par t i cu la rg iven or in fe r rab le p iece o f in fo rmat ion is no t re fe r redto by means o f a te rm ( i . e . i s no t an en t i t y ) , o r becausethe informat ion referred to has not been introduced bymeans o f another te rm ( i . e . by means o f a NewTop) . Theconsequences of th is str ict approach to Topic assignment( in par t i cu la r w i th regard to SubTops) w i l l be d j -scussedb e I o w .

2 .3 The re la t ion be tween Top ic -Focus and Given-New: someproblems

We wi l l now take the po in t o f v iew o f the ana lys t , andtry to apply some of the subtypes of Topic and Focusdescr ibed above to Eng l ish da ta . We wi l l pay par t i cu la ra t ten t ion to p robJ-ems and/or incons is tenc ies ar is ing f romthe combinat ion of inforrnat ion concerning the Topic-Focusfunct ion and the Given-New status of d iscourse elementsin one pragrmat ic funct ion.

On assigning pragmatic functions in Englkh I87

Given TopicsGivTops, ds we have seen, a re de f ined in te rms o f spec ia lt reatrnent of certain topicar elements, whereas givennessis def ined in terrns of the speaker, s est imate of theaddressee 's p ragmat ic knowledge. Never the less , thegivenness of GivTops turns out to be restr icted torrcontextual ly givenrf inf ormat ion, i . e . inf ormat ion thathas been introduced into the discourse by means of aNewTop. One night consider, however, that ent i t iesintroduced by the s i tuat ion, or present in the generalpragunat ic inf orrnat ion of the addressee are also GivTops:they are given ( in terms of pragrmat ic informat ion) , andthey ( formal ly) behave I ike Topics ( they may have p1posi t ion wi thout having prosodic prominence) . Thus in thefol lowing examples

(18) Watch ou t ! The ce iT ing is cav ing in !(19) (Gu ide in a museum) z Th is pa in t ing was pa in ted by

Turner in 1844. f t i s ca l led 'The Great WesternR a i l w a y ' . T h e p a i n t i n g h a s b e e n p r a i s e d f o r . . .

(2 0 ) Have you heard the latest news? The BerTin Wal, l - hasbeen demol ished.

the ent i t ies referred to by means of the i tar ic ized termsare contextual ly ner^/ . In the theory of Dik, they cantherefore only be assigned NewTop or NewFoc funct ion.However, they do not have ernphatic accent or the mostprorninent accent of the expression ( though, l ike SubTopsa n d R e s T o p s t h e y m a y t t t y p i c a l l y t t h a v e a c e r t a i n d e g r e e o faccentual prominence, on account of the fact that theyare contextual ly new) . They do go into P1. Moreover, wecan cer ta in ly th ink o f these e lements as top ica le lements , as what the d iscourse is about (see inpar t i cu la r example (19) ) . In o ther words , i t seemsjus t i f ied to ass ign these cons t i tuents G ivTop func t ion .The on ly d i f fe rence be tween these e lements and D ik tsGivTops is that the ent i t ies they refer to have not beenintroduced by means of the discourse ( through a NewTop) ,but have ei ther been introduced by means of thesi tuat ion, or are assurned to be avai labte on account ofthe fac t tha t they are par t o f the addressee 's genera lin fo rmat ion . f f So , th ree k inds o f G ivTop cou ld bed is t ingu ished: Contex tua l l y G ivTops, S i tua t iona l l yGivTops and Genera l l y G ivTops. In tha t case, G ivTopfunc t ion wou ld be more d i rec t l y re la ted to theaddressee 's (contex tua l , s i tua t iona l and genera l )

188 J. Lachlan Mackenzie and M. Evelien Keizer

pragmatic knowledge.

Sub-Topicss u b r o p s a r e d e f i n e d b y D i k a s , T o p i c s w h i c h m a y b eregi t imatery inferred from a GivTop on the basis of ourknowredge of what is normal ly the case in the worrd ' (Dikl -989: 275] , and are ca l led in fu1 l r 'SubTops o f theGivTopr t . rn fe r rab i r i t y , however , i s re la ted to g ivennessrather than to Topichood (cf . pr ince l -981-) . Thus anelement may be inferrable ( in the sense that i t can beinf erred f rom the addressee' s ent i re pragrmat icin fo rmat ion , inc lud ing in fo rmat ion prov ided in thed iscourse) , w i thout necessar i l y be ing in fe r rab le f rom aGivTop. There is no reason, however, to assume that suche lements a re no t subTops, s ince they do qua l i f y fo r th isfunc t ion on account o f the i r fo rmal p roper t ies . Thus , inthe fo l low ing exampres , the i ta l i c ized te rms behave r i kesubrops. They are not, however, inferrabre f rom otherdiscourse ent i t ies (GivTops or NewTops) , but f rompred ica tes (wh ich , ds we have seen in 52 . 2 , cannot beTop ics) o r cer ta in combina t ions o f p red ica tes andarguments :

(21) r t was dark and s to rmy the n igh t the mi l l i_ona i rewas murdered. The k i l -7er Le f t no c lues f o r thepor ice to t race (carpenter and Jus t L977; see Browna n d Y u l e 1 9 8 3 : 2 5 8 )

(22) Mary dressed the baby . The cl-othes were made ofp ink woo l (Sanford and Gar rod j -981_)

(23) we wanted to buy the house straightaway, but thees ta te agent adv ised us to wa i t a b i t .

what we suggest, therefore, is that subTops shourd bedef ined as rr inf erred Topicsrr rather than as t t subTops ofthe GivToptt . Note that in ei ther case subTops arerequ i red to behave as i f they were (G iven) Top ics : theym u s t h a v e P 1 - p o s i t i o n ( w i t h a t m o s t a r r c e r t a i n d e g r e e r f o faccentua l p rominence) . Th is means tha t , con t ra ry to whatis suggested by D ik in foo tno tes 6 and Lz (D ik t -989 l . 267 ,275) , no t a l l in fe r rab les are SubTops. fndeed, i t appearsthat many inferrables are (according to the speciart rea tment requ i rement ) ne i ther (sub- /G iven) Top ic norFocus ( see example Qq) ) ; they rdy, however, have NewTopfunct ion ( i . e. they introduce an ent i ty into thed i s c o u r s e l s e e e x a m p l e ( Z S ) , a n d i n d e e d ( 2 6 ) ) .

On assigning pragmatic functions in English 189

(24) There was a car approaching the junct ion, but thedr iver didn,t stop at the give eray s ign (Brown andY u I e , 1 - 9 8 3 : 1 , 8 3 )

(25) A: l {hat d id you see in the c i rcus?B: Wel l , there was an elephant that amazed us wi th

his tricks . His name was Jumbo . He coul,C stando n h i s t r u n k . . .

New TopicsHere, too, New is new at a contextual l_evel . Thus NewTopsnay at the same t i rne be given or inf errabl-e wi th regardto the addressee 's generar o r s i tua t iona l p ragrnat icin fo rna t ion , as i lLus t ra ted by the fo l low ing examplesrespec t ive ly :

(26) Yesterday in the pub I met your s ister l {ary (Dik,1 -989 z 269)

(27 ) Look at that man over there ! He's ta lk ing toh i m s e l f .

Focuswe have seen that Focus is subdiv ided into NewFoc andcontrFoc. once again the term New is rather misreading,as what is meant is not new with regard to theaddressee's ent i re praqnat ic informat ion, but new in atex tuar sense. cont rFoc is , by i rnp l i ca t ion , con tex tuar lyg iven (see D ik 1989 : 282, scherna (43) ) : the in fo rmat ionf ocused on is no t comple te ly ( i . e . con tex tuaJ" ly ) new tothe addressee r ' i t is f ocused on by v i r tue of someinp l i c i t o r exp l i c i t con t ras t .

This dist inct ion turns out to be somewhat probremat ic.rn the f i rst prace, i t appears that contrFoc const i tuentsneed not be contextualry given, but may be si tuat ional lyg iven (and contex tua l l y new, as in example (ZB) ' ) ,g e n e r a l l y g i v e n ( a n d c o n t e x t u a l l y n e w , a s i n ( 2 9 ) ) , o rconp le te ly nev / to addressee (as in (30) ) :

(28) (gu ide in a museum: ) Th is lpa in t ing) i s a lmostcertainly an authent ic Rembrandt. This one hasprobab ly been pa in ted by one o f h is pup i l s .

(29) Have you heard the latest news? George Bush isgo ing to res ign ; Dan Quay le i s go ing to succeedh i n .

190 J. Lachlan Mackenzie and M. Evelien Keizer

(30) A : What a re you go ing to buy?B: I rm go ing to buy a book fo r pe ter , a record fo r

S a l l y , s o m e f l o w e r s f o r m y m o t h e r . . .

second ly , G iven Focus e le rnents a re no t necessar i ry usedcont ras t ive ly . Thus , in the fo r rowing exampre , the g ivenerement her is c lear ly the most sar ient informat ion inthe c rause. . Moreover , i t i s s ingred ou t fo r spec ia lt reatment: i t h3= ernphat ic accent ( in spoken ranguage) ,and i t appears in what may be considered- a speciar r6clscons t ruc t ion . r t i s no t , however , used cont ras t ive ly :

(31) A : I . Iha t about Rebecca?B: r t was to her tha t John gave h is most p rec ious

p a i n t i n g . ( H a n n a y 1 9 8 3 : 2 L 4 \

The problern thus seems to be that the correspondencebetween the Given-New dist inct ion and the I tcontrast ]fea ture is , once aga in , on ly par t ia r . As a resu l t , thereis no NewFoc-contrFoc opposi t ion (as suggested by schema( 4 3 ) , D i k 1 9 8 9 : 2 8 2 1 . A c c o r d i n g t o H a n n a y ( t _ 9 8 5 : z l o ' ) ,the two d is t inc t ions (G iven-New vs cont ras t ive-Noncont ras t ive) ac tuar ly re la te to two d i f fe ren t revers .The f i r s t l -eve l (wh ich Hannay ca l -1s rasser t i ve Focusr ,cf . De Jong l -98l- ) re lates to elements that are new f orthe addressee in the g iven se t t ing (c f . D ik 's compre t iveFocus) . The second lever (wh ich Hannay ca l l_s r rEmphat icFocusrr ) re lates to inf ormat ion which is rr importantrr or"sa l - ien t ' f in tha t i t i s emphas ized in the g ivLn se t t ing .These two levels do not represent a dichotorny: both newald given informat ion may be emphasized, whereby Ernphat icGiven Focus typ ica l l y , bu t no t necessar i l y , in i ro rvescont ras t .s Accord ing to such a ca tegor iza t i6n o f Focus

sEmphat ic Given Focus elements that i -nvolve contrastcan be fu r ther subd iv ided accord ing to D ik , sc l a s s i f i c a t i o n ( i . e . i n t o p a r a l l e l F o c u s a n d c o u n t e r -p resuppos i t ionar Focus) . Not ice tha t New (comple t ive)Focus can a lso be d iv ided in to severar subtypes . F i rs t o fa r r a d is t inc t ion can be made between Non-Emphat ic NewFocus (Asser t i ve Focus , ds in example (7 ) ) and Emphat icNew Focus ; second ly , Emphat ic New Focus can be subd iv idedin to cont ras t ive New Focus (para l le r Focus , see exampJ-e( 3 0 ) ) and Non-cont ras t ive New Focus , dS in :

On assigning pragmatic functions in English l9I

types, sentence (31B) nourd be an exarnpre of an Emphat icGiven Focus which does not involve cont iast .

3. Special Treatment

The di f f icuLt ies one may encounter in the assignment ofTopic and Focus are, however, not onry due to fundamentaldi f ferences between the Topic-Focus and Given-Newdis t inc t ions . rn add i t ion , there are probrems ar is ingfron the requirement that Topic and Focus elements betts ingled out f or special t reatmentr f . Thus we run intoproblems in assigning pragmatic funct ions in a sentencel i k e ( 3 2 ) ( = ( 8 ) ) :

(32) John and B i l l came to see me. John was n ice , bu tB i 7 7 w a s r a t h e r b o r i n g ( D i k L 9 8 9 : 2 7 8 )

rn Dikts theory, the contextuarry given elements John andBi77 are to be ass igned parFoc : they are foca l e lementssingled out for special t reatment (piosodic prominence inspoken ranguage, PL pos i t ion) . They do , however , a lsoquar i fy fo r Top ic func t ion ( they j re top icar e rementspraced in P1; the prosod ic p rominence is due tocont ras t ) . Th is over lap is poss ib le because we aredea l ing w i th f our d i f fe ren t

-d i rnens ions : g ivenness in

terms of presence in preceding context , focal_i ty in termsof sa l ience, top icar i t y in te rms o f ,what the d iscourseis aboutrr and Topic-Focus in terms of special t reatment.The const i tuents John and BirL in the second sentence ofexanp le (32) have a l l these fea tures . Thus i t appearsthat there is not onJ-y an over lap between topicar i ty andfocar i ty, but arso between Topic and Focus.

-whethei the

theory a l rows us to ass ign John and B i l l in (32) bo thTop ic and Focus func t ion is no t a l together c l_ear . rnchapter l -3 Dik is rather vagJue on this point . Ar l he saysis tha t r f the cons t i tuents John and B i I l a re emphas ize i ,a l though they have already been introduced and may thusbe assumed to be Given Top ics to A , (D ik l_9g9 z z l e ;under l in ing is ours ) . rn chapter 1g , however , D ik seemsto suggest that GivTop funct ion can be assigned tocont ras ted e lements : f ra G ivTop w i r l have no accentuar

John bought1 9 8 3 : 2 L 0 )

( i ) c a r ( o f a l l th ings) . (Hannay

192 J. Lachlan Mackenzie and M. Evelien Keizer

prominence (unless contrasted to some other GivTop) t (Dikl -989 : 39L; under l in ing is ours ) . I f , however ,const i tuents can at the same t ime have both Topic andFocus funct ion, does this mean they shourd have thespecial ( formal ) features of both? And what, in thatcase, i s the use o f ass ign ing pragnat ic func t ions? r f , onthe other hand, const i tuents can have only one pragmaticfunct ion, how does one serect the r ight pragi-mat icfunc t ion in a sentence l i ke (32)?

one way to sorve this probrem would be to redef ineTopic and Focus in such a way that they become morecons is ten t ly appr icab le . The f i rs t s tep wou ld be torecogn ize tha t s ince spec ia l t rea tment o f Top ic and Focusm a y c o i n c i d e ( a s i n e x a m p r e ( 3 2 ) ) , b o t h f u n c t i o n s m u s t b eg iven a de f in i t ion tha t i s no t sore ly dependent onspec ia l t rea tment o f cer ta in top ica l o r focar e lements .obv iousry , such a de f in i t ion wourd requ i re tha t there la t ion be tween top icar i t y - focar i ty and Top ic -Focus bespec i f ied . In o ther words , what i s needed is aspec i . f i ca t ion o f the speaker 's s t ra teg ies and mot iva t ionsin s ing l ing ou t cer ta in top ica l o r focar e rements fo rTop ic o r Focus ass ignment (poss ib ly in te rms o fr f reLevancer r o r r raboutnessr r , see Hannay 1990 ) . I ff eas ib re , such a redef in ing o f the pragrmat ic func t ionsTopic and Focus would have the addi t ionar advantage ofprov id ing the "miss ing l ink r r re fe r red to in S l - .

We are, however, by no means certain that such adef in i t ion o f Top ic and Focus is ac tua t r - ry feas ib l -e .There fore we want to o f fe r an ar te rna t ive so lu t ion ,wh ich , in our v iew, w i l l be cons is ten t bo th w i th thetheory of FG and with the data presented in the precedingsec t ions . The so lu t ion we have in mind cons i -s ts inabandon ing the idea o f Top ic func t ion in Eng l ish . Th ismay appear to be a rad icar p roposar , bu t l -e t us cons iderthe ev idence. we know tha t Top ic and Focus are de f ined inte rms o f spec ia l t rea tment . we arso know the fo rms th isspec ia l t rea tment may take across languages (52 . fy . Le tus now conf ine ourse lves to Eng l ish . w i th respec t toFocus there does no t seem to be any d i f f i cur ty : a l thoughEngr ish does no t have any spec ia l Focus markers , theremain ing focar iz ing dev ices (p rosod ic p rominence inspoken J.anguage, const i tuent order, sp€cial Focusconstruct ions ) provide suff ic ient means by which tos ingre ou t cer ta in foca l e rements . w i th Top ics , however ,t h e s i t u a t i o n i s d i f f e r e n t . F i r s t o f a l l , G i v T o p s d o n o thave prosodic prorninence (unless contrasted to some other

On assigning pragmatic functions in English 193

Topic, but then prosodic prominence does not dist inguishthen from Focus elernents) . subTops and ResTops may havesone degree of accentual prominence, but th iJ prom-- inenceis onry rr typicalrr , and appr ies onJ-y to spoken ranguage.secondry, of the grammatical means that ranguages pioviaefor maintaining Topic cont inui ty ment ioned uv Dik(anaphor ic re fe rence, syn tac t ic parar le r ism, sw i tchre ference and obv ia t ion) , on ly anaphor ic re fe rence seemsto apply to Engl ish. Note, however, that anaphor ic i ty assuch need not indicate Topichood: anaphors can be used tore fe r to contex tua l l y g iven (o r in fe r rab le ) en t i t ies ;these need not be Topic. we may therefore concrude thatspeciar t reatment for Topic const i tuents in Engl ishconsists in pracement in p1 (but wi thout prolodicproninence) ; a conclusion supported by the fact that in!h" examples provided by Dik the GivTop const i tuents areindeed a lwayse praced in th is pos i t ion . r f th is i s thecase, then Top ic ass ignment i s necessar i ry a ra thera r b i t r a r y a f f a i r . A f t e r a 1 l , p 1 p o s i t i o n c . i b e f i l r e dgnry once, and thus Topic assignment can only take pracein those cases where pr- is not arready t i i rea by someother eLement (ei ther an element that wourd oul ig j tor i lygo into P1, such as relat ive pronouns or subordinatorsl9 r , . poss ib ry , a Focus e lement ) . obv ious ly , th is i s no t ;d e s i r a b l e s i t u a t i o n .

one rdy, of course, obj ect that i t is nowhereexpl ic i t ry stated that Topic elements must go into p1;this is, however, something that must be dLduced fromwhat is stated in Dik ( 1989 ) about pl- posi t ion and f rornthe f act that Topic assignment necessar i ry invol-vessingJ. ing out el-ernents f or special t reatm6nt. Note,however, that dropping the requirement that Topics r , , , r t ,be praced in p l wourd mean los ing the ras t poss ib i r i t yfor . g iv ing speciar t reatment tb Topic ei .ements inE n g l i s h .

The next quest ion to ask rnj-ght be whether our proposalto re jec t Top ic ass ignment in Eng l ish a lso coversNewTops. The ansv/er is t tyest t , the reason being that i twou ld be fa r more cons is ten t , even w i th p ik 's ownproposal , to regard NewTop funct ion as a part icular k indof Focus . Not ice , fo r ins tance, tha t i f rop ic ass ignmentnecessar i ty invo lves spec ia l t rea tment , NewTops are ,s t r i c t l y speak ing , no t Top ics . They d i f fe r f rom b i . r top=,

\ { l tn one except ion on p . 2L7 (ex . j -88)

I94 J. Lachlan Mackenzie and M. Evelien Keizer

subTops, and ResTops in that their Topic status does notdepend on spec ia r t rea tment (non- in i t ia r t rea tment i sn typ ica l , p re fe r red t t i p rosod ic p rominence, re revant on lyin spoken ranguage, does not dist inguish them from roculcons t i tuents ) , bu t on whether o r no t a top ica l en t i t y i sbeing introduced into the discourse. However r ds Dikh imse l f observes , NewTop ent i t ies a re in th is respec tb o t h t o p i c a l a n d f o c a l l a f t e r a l r , f o c a t i t y i s d e f i n e d a st tat taching to those pieces of inforrnat ion which are themost important or sal ient wi th respect to themodi f i ca t ions wh ich s w ishes to e f fec t in po , and w i threspect to the further deveTopment of the discourse (Dik1 9 8 9 z 2 6 6 , u n d e r l i n i n g i s o u r s ) . A n d s i n c e t h e i r f o r m a rfea tures do no t d is t ingu ish them f rom Focus e lements ,there does not seem to be any reason not to regard themas a . par t i curar k ind o f (New) Focus ( e . g . p resenta t iveFocus lo ; .

F inar ry , re t us cons ider the consequences o f ourproposar to re jec t Top ic ass ignment in Eng l ish fo r thetheory o f FG. F i rs t o f a l r one may wonder whether i t i snot j -ncons istent wi th the theory to accept that somelanguages have two crause- internal- pragmatic funct ions,whereas other languages ( such as Engr ish) have onJ_y one .we c la i rn tha t i t i s no t . rn the f i rs t p race , i t seems toadd to the descr ip t i ve as wer r as to the typo log ica l -adequacy of the theory to a11ow pragrmat ic funct ion

l t lot ice that New Topic is s i rnpry another term forHannay 's r rPresenta t ive func t ionr r , wh ich is de f ined asf o1 l -ows

A te rm wi th p resenta t ive func t ion re fe rs to anent i t y wh ich the speaker by means o f the assoc ia tedpred ica t ion w ishes to expr ic i t l y in t roduce in to thew o r L d o f d i s c o u r s e ( H a n n a y 1 9 8 5 b : L 7 1 _ ) .

D i k u s e s t h e t e r m N e w T o p i c r r i n o r d e r t o s t r e s s i t spos i t ion in the s t ra teg ies fo r in t roduc ing , ma in ta in inga n d r e n e w i n g r r d i s c o u r s e t o p i c s t t r t ( D i k L 9 g 9 : 1 , 7 9 ) .However , s ince Top ic and Focus func t ion are de f ined inte rms o f spec ia l t rea tment , anc i e lements w i thPresentat ive funct ion are t reated as Focus rather thanTop ic e lements , i t w i l r be more cons is ten t to regard thepragmatic funct ion Presentat ive as a subtype of New Focus( P r e s e n t a t i v e F o c u s ) .

On assigning pragmatic functions in Engtish 195

assignment to di f fer f ro-m ranguage to J-anguage. secondry,i t br ings pragrmat ic funct i6ns- into r ine- wi th, forl l : tu l"9, syntat t ic funct j -ons. af ler a lJ- , sub j ect andobject funct ion are not rerevant in al l - languages ei ther.Thus , sub jec t func t ion is on ly cons idered re levant i f thelanguage in ques t ion has an ac t ive-pass ive oppos i t ion ;3nd obj ect funct ion is .on1y deemed rerevant i f theranguage a l r -ows f o r a nec ip idn t ou jec t l ; i k ' l r sg , 2Ls) .s i rn i lar ly, we may think or Topic and Focus f unct i -on asreLevant onry i f the language in quest ion proviaes themeans to s ingle out certain Copical or focal e lernents forspec ia r t rea tment . s ince nng l isn p iov ides

" " rv foca l i z ingdev ices , . . i t fo l lows tha l ,

" " i y Focus func t ion isre levant . l l

As far as the placement of e lements in pr. is concerned,our proposal- does not seem to have ser ious consequencese i t h e r . A c c o r d i n g t o D i k ( 1 9 8 9 : 3 4 9 ) , r a l L l a n g u a g e s m a ybe supposed to use p1 _ fo r =pe" i i1 purposes , (see arsosP4) . rn s2 .1 we a l ready des t r ibed the generaJ_ pa t te rnfo r the uses made o f p r - : i t i s e i ther r i r iea-Ly some pr_-const i tuent r ot by a const i tuent wi th topi" ' or Focusfunct ion. 12 However, re j

"ct i "g Topic

-u-J- ig 'ment in

'Drawin_g t ! " parar re r w i th syn tac t ic (and a lsosenant ic) funct ions even further r w€ may considerrev is ing the pragmat ic func t ion h ie rarchy (D i i 19g9: 34)in such a vtay that Focus is pi"="" t"a as more "central , lthan Top ic ( in _ anarogy w l th^ sub jec t and Agent in thesyntac t ic and semant ic f r inc t ion t i i " r . rch ies ,respec t ive ly ) . As we have 100ked a t Engr ish da ta on1y ,such a rev is ion can, o f course , on ly be l i ypo the t ica l . Thehypothesis is, however, dD intui t iveJ-y

'Jt t ru l t ive one.Af te r a r1 , whenever c lauses cons is t o f one cons t i tuenton ly , th is cons t i tuent , p resent ing the most sa l ien tin fo r rna t ion , w i l l be ass ign 'ea r " " " " func t ion . s in i la r l y ,in c lauses reduced fo r reasons o f t i rne or space (as , fo rinstance, in t_eregrams) , i t is totar inf o i rnat ion ( f rornwh ich Focus eLements a re serec ted) tha t i s expressedrather than topical informat ion (providing . . . ,a id. t"" forT o p i c f u n c t i o n ) .

r2Not ice tha t , fo r Eng l ish , sp4 is va l id as i t s tandsprovided i t is understooi that Topic "==1g"*L"t

is notnecessar i l y re revant in " ] l

l -anguag ls . The Jarne hords , dsw e w i l l s e e , f o r s p 5 . T h i s p r i " " i p - r " , t o o , w i l l s t i r r b e

196 l. Lachlan Mackenzie aru| M. Evelien Keizer

Engl ish means that in many cases Pl- wi I I be occupied by acons t i tuent wh ich has no spec ia l p ragmat ic s ign i f i canceand wh ich is no t a P l - -cons t i tuent . Th is ra ises thequest ion o f what r rspec ia l user f i s made o f P l - in suchcases , and o f what de termines p lacement in P l . The answeri s p r o v i d e d i n D i k ' s S P 5 :

SP5 : Since the Subj ect is the pr ime Given Topiccand ida te , i t w i l l o f ten be p laced in P1; th is maylead to a reinterpretat ion of PL as the unmarkedS u b j e c t p o s i t i o n .

As far as Engl ish is concerned, v/e may therefore assumethat in the unmarked case P l -pos i t ion is f i l l ed by theSub jec tp and tha t in the marked case i t w i l l be f i l l edei ther by a P1-const i tuent or by a const i tuent wi th Focusfunct ion. Thus we conclude that rej ect ing Topicass ignment in Eng l ish is no t incompat ib le w i th the theoryof FG in general , and pragmatic funct ion assignment andP1-pJ-acement in par t i cu la r .

4 . A n a p p l i c a t i o n o f D i k ' s ( 1 9 8 9 ) p r o p o s a l s

4 . 1 f r i n c i p l e s o f a n a l y s i s

fn the preced ing sec t ion , w€ examined the in te rna lc o n s i s t e n c y o f D i k ' s ( L 9 8 9 ) p r o p o s a l s f o r t h e a s s i g n m e n tof pragrmat ic funct ions, and suggested a number of ways inwh ich those proposa ls migh t be adapted , spec i f i ca l l y bydisconnect ing the Given-New and Topic-Focus parametersand by mak ing i t poss ib le fo r the ass ignment o f spec i f i cpragrmat ic funct ions not to apply in part icular languages.

fn th is sec t ion , w€ w i I I a t tempt to app ly D ik , sproposals, wi thout any of the rnajor adaptat ions suggestedin 52 and 53 , to a passage o f runn ing tex t w i th a v iew totes t ing the i r empi r i ca l va lue . The tex t chosen is The

va l id , dS J -ong as one accepts tha t P l -as the unmarked Subj ect posi t ion evenwhich Top ic func t ion is no t re levant .

can be interpretedf or J-anguages in

1 .

On assigning pragmatic functions in English 197

story of Babar, t i which has the advantage of containingl i t t le syn tac t ic complex i ty .

rn the ana lys is , a r r pL f i l re rs have been ind ica ted inheavy type. our analysis is based on the fol lowingassumptions, which in turn are der ived from a reading oiD i k ( t e 8 e ) :

For every f in i te c lause, P1 must be f i l l ed (c f . D ikL 9 8 9 : 3 6 2 ) ; t h i s a l - s o a p p l i e s t o n o n - f i n i t e c l a u s e sconta in ing des ignated ca tegor ies , such as wh i lewashing the dishesP1 nay contai-n no more than one const i tuent of thec lause, ra and th is cons t i tuent i s a lways the f i rs tin t ra -c lausa l cons t i tuent .Generar ly, the presence or absence of a comma aftercandidates f or P1--pracement has been taken asind ica t ive o f P2 (ex t ra -c lausa l ) and pL ( in t ra -c lausa l ) s ta tus respec t ive ly .

4 . P2 d i f fe rs f rom p1 in accept ing more than oneconst i tuent, ds in the for lowing example f rom TheStory of Babarz

{ (After dinner) r i . " , (because he is very t i red) R., . - }p2,h € p r g o e s t o b e d . ( 1 I . 4 0 - 4 1 )

Cl-ause coordinators such as and, but, so and f or areana lysed as be ing in te r -cLausa l , and as such no toccupy ing any pos i t ion in the c lausa l pa t te rn .

r3As presented in C . Fadiman ( ed. ) , The Worl-dTreasury of chiTdren' s Li terature, r , Boston & Toronto:L i t t le , Brown & co , L984 , pp . l -3 3 -141 . The s to ry has beentransl-ated f rom the French; we consider that the text ofthe t ranslat ion is such naturar Engl ish that the fact ofi ts being a t ransrat ion shourd not detract f rom the varueof our f ind ings . Fur thermore , there are in Fad inan (1984)a nurnber of i l - lustrat ions to which, f rom t i rne to t ime,the tex t makes a l lus ion . Aga in , we do no t cons ider tha tour fa i lu re to reproduce these i l lus t ra t ions a f fec ts theva lue o f our f ind ings .

ra rn c lauses conta in ing onry one cons t i tuent , tha tcons t i tuent i s , g iven assurnpt i -on r , consequent ly in p1 .

2 .

3 .

5 .

198 J. Lachlan Mackenzie and M. Evelien Keizer

On the bas is o f these assumpt ions , our ana lys is hasproceeded as fo l lows:

Where P1 is occupied by a quest ion word,subord ina tor , re la t i ve p ronoun, sa te l l i te , dummy i to r verba l cons t i tuent , P l i s ind ica ted in heavy type ;where the PL-f i l - ler a lso carr ies a pragrnat icfunc t ion , there is an add i t iona l ind ica t ion o f tha tpragrmat ic funct ion.Const i tuents not in PL but bear ing a pragmaticfunct ion INewTop or NewFoc] are enclosed in squarebrackets , w i th an ind ica t ion o f the pragmat icfunc t ion in ques t ion .I n k e e p i n g w i t h o u r r e a d i n g o f D i k ( 1 9 8 9 ) , c f . 5 2 . 3 ,\de assign GivTop, SubTop and ResTop only to P1--f i I l e r s .Focus f unct ion is assigned onJ-y where there isevidence in the wr i t ten text for special t reatment ofthe cons t i tuent in ques t ion ( e . g . P l -p lacement Ip a r a l l e l i s m ; a p r e c e d i n g c o l o n ; e t c . ) . F o c u s w o u l d o fcourse be assigned much more frequent ly in at ranscr ip t ion o f a read ing o f the s to ry , s inceprosod ic p rominence is ind ica t ive o f the presence o ft h i s f u n c t i o n .

The ana l -ys is i s f o l lowed byparagraph.

commentary on each

4.2 The Story o f Babar ana lysed

1 .

2 .

3 .

The Story of Babar the l i t t le elephant

Jean de Brunhofft rans la ted f rom the French by Mer le S . Haas

In the great forest*"*r* [a I i t t Ie elephantJN"*rop is born.His namesubrop is Babar. His mother.uor* l-oves hin very much.Sheo,"r* rocks him to s leep with her t runk whi le s ingings o f t l y t o h i n .

Babaro,"r* has grown bigger. H€ciurop now plays with the otherl i t t le e lephants . Heo iur * i s a very good L i t t le e lephant .See h i rn d igg ing in the sand w i th h is she l l .

Babaro, , r* is r id ing happi ly on his mother 's back when I a

On assigning pragmatic functions in English I99

1 0

L 5

wicked hunter, h idden behind some bushesJN"*rop, shoots at

then.The hunter.,."- has kil led Babarts mother! The monkeyPsrFoc

hideS, the -"b-l.rdSr"ruo"

f ly agay, BabaEparFoc crieS. The

hunteroivrop rush€s up to catch poor Babar 'nafaio,"i* runs away because he is af raid of the hunter '

After several days, very tired indeed, h€ci"rop comes to a

town.Hec.,r- hardly knows what to make of it because this is

the f i rst t ine that he has seen so many houses.so many things*.*r* are new to h in ! The broad

streetssuur- ! fhe iutononiles and busesrror* !, However, h€ciurop

is especlaf ly interested in two gentlemenN"*rop h€ci"rop

not ices on the s t ree t .H€ciurop says to hinself : rrRea1ly, theYcl,Top .t? very well

aresset i . Ic iurop woul,d l ike to have Isome f ine c]-othesJNewropr

too ! Ioi"r* worider how I can get them? rl

lucXffi, a very rich OId Lady who has always been fond

of l i tt1e' elephaitSN"*rop understands right awa.y that he is

Iong ing fo r ; f ine-su i t . As she a lways l i kes to make

peopt. happy, sh€6;"1* gives hirn her purse' Babaro;ut* says

to her pol i te ly : "Think You , Madam. t l

Without rur€itrg any i ime, Babarci"rop goes I into a big

storeJNe*rop. H€ciurop enters the elevator. f t is such fun to

r ide r i i " '5na d; ; ; in th is funny box, that he r ides I a l l

the way uPlp",po" Iten times]p"rFo" and IaII the way down]p",Fo"

Iten Citne=1;;;;;. H€cit,rop does not want to stop but the

elevator b"t ; ;* f in i l iy says to him: rrThisrnr* is not a

toy, Mr. n-lephant . You6;"1* must get out and do your

shopping. Look, here*"o, .o" is the f loorwalker ' r lAl taro,"r- then fuys nirnsel f : [a shir t wi th a co]- Iar and

t ie, a Si i i t of a becoming shade of green , then a handsome

derby hat, and also shoes with spatsJN"*rop. _W"i f sat isf ied r t i th his Purchases

'and f eel ing very

happy, Babaro,"r- now goes to have his picture taken '

And heroNewFoc is his PhotograPh.Babaro,"r*

- dines with his f riend the old Lady. Sfe-grron

thinks h"o"r- ]ooks very smart in his new clothes. After

dinner, leciuse he is t ired, h€ci"rop goes to bed and Oci"ropfa I l s as leep verY qu ick IY .

Babaro,"r* now l ives at the otd Lady's house. In the

norni i lgJ, he does sett ing-up exercises wi th her, and then

he takes a bath.E€ci"rop goes out [for an automobile rideJN"*rop every day'

2 0

2 5

3 0

3 5

4 0

4 5

5 0

200 J. Lachlan Mackenzie and M. Evelien Keizer

5 5

The old Ladyo,ur* has given him the car. sh€ciurop gives hirnwhatever he wants.

A rearned prof essorN"*Fo" gives hirn lessons. Babaro,uroo paysattent ion and @ciur-op does welr in his work. H€ciurop i ; d g""apupi l and @ciur- makes rapid progress.

In the evening, af ter d inner, h€ol , , rop te l ls the oldL a d y / s f r i e n d s a l l a b o u t h i s r i f e i n t h e ' g r e a t f o r e s t .

However, Babaro,ur. is not qui te happy, for h€", , r_ missesp lay ing Iw i th h is r i t t re cous ins ]Newroo and h is r r ie r ias , themonkeys. I r€ciurop of ten stands at the dindow, th inking sadj_yof his chi ldhood, and @ciurop cr ies when he remembers hiam o t h e r .

Two yearsNewFoc have passed. one day dur ing his wal lc he seesI two l i t t te elephants J N"*rop coming toward him. Theyo,uroohave no c l -o thes on . t twhyr t , ' h€c iu r - says in as ton isnment - ' t c jthe ord Lady , " i t ' s Ar thur hnd ceres te , i l y l i t t l_ec o u s i n s ! r l

^ l "b?fg*t :n. k isses them af f ect ionately and @ciurop hurr iesof f wi th them to buy then I some f ine c lothes ] *"* . , .* .H€ciurop takes them to a pastry shop to eat some good

c a k e s .Meanwhi le, in the forest , the elephantsw"*rop are cal_1- ing

and . hunt ing high and low f or Arthur and 'ceIeste,

. r lotheir mothersSubrop are worr ied.

For tunate ly , in f l y ing over the town, ?D o ld naraboubird*"*r* has seen them and Ociurop comes back quickly to te l lthe nerds .

The mothers of Arthur and celesteo,"r* have come to thetown to f etch them. Theyo,ur* are very

' happy to have thern

back , but theyo,ur* scol-d them j ust the same because theyran away.

Babaro,ur* makes up hi s mind to go back with Arthur andce l -es te and the i r mothers to see the grea t fo res t aga in .The Old Ladyo,uroo helps him to pack his t runk.

_ Th"yrubrop- dr€ al l ready to start . Babaro,ur* k isses the OIdLady good-bye. Heci"rop would be qui te hapby to go i f i t\ , rere not f or leaving her. Heoiuroo promises to come backsome day . Hec iu roo w i l l never fo rge t 'her .

Theyo'ur* have gone There is no room in the car forthe mothers, so t ! .yo"r* ru l behind, and @ciurop I i f t uptheir t runks to avoid brbathing the dust. r r re-

On assigning pragmatic functions in English 201,

Alas, that very day, the King of the elephants.uur* haseaten a [a bad mushroomJN"*rop.

_.r tc iuroo_ poisons hirn and heci"rop becomes i l - l - , so i l l that hedies. Thiso*.r* is a great calarni ty.

100 After the funeral the three oldest elephants areholding a meet ing to choose a neh, King.

Just then they hear a noise. Theyo,ur- turn around. Guesswhat they see! {Babar a r r i v ing in h is car and a l r theerephants running and shouting: ,Here".*oo" they are !

105 Here,q.o,po" they are! Eer lg, Babar! Eer lo, cereste! whatbeaut i fu l crothes! what a beaut i fu l car! t r lN.*r ,o"

Then Icorner ius , the ordes t o f a l r the e lephantsJN"* ro ,p ,speaks in his quaver ing voice: , rMy good fr iends, r i io,"r*are seeking a King. why not choose Babar? H€ciurop tras j r is t

110 returned from the biq c i ty, h€ciurop has Learnei l so muchl iv ing w i th men, le t us c rown h in K ing . " A l l the o therelephants.uuron think that corner ius has spoken wisely andeager lyNewFoc they await Babarrs reply.

_ j t t lcrurop- want to thank you one and aI I , t t )N"*Fo" says

115 Babar, r rbut bef ore accept ing your proposar , i ; , ; ; mustexprain to you that, whire we were travel ing in t i iL car,cereste and r became engaged. r f r becorne your King,sh€ciurop wiI I be your eueen. r t

{Longf*.*oo. l ive Queen celeste ! LongNewFoc rive KingL20 Babar ! tt )n"*Fo" cry aII the elephants without a moment r s

hesi tat ion. And thus*onro" i t is that Babar becomes King.{rrYouo,ur* have good ideas, t t }N.*Fo" says Babar to cornei ius,I t rc i"rop wir l therefore make you a generar, and when r get

my cro\^/n, fciurop wil l give you ny hat. In a week*"*ro" I shallr25 narry cereste. w€cinrop wi l l then have a spJ.endid party in

honor o f Iour mar r iage)N.* rop and our coronat ion . t r Then,turning to the birds, Babaro,ur- asks them to go and invi teal l the anirnars I to the rest iv i t iesJN"*rop, and h€ciurop terrsI the dromedary J N"*.rop to qo to the town and b"y' I some

130 beaut i fu l c lo thes l * . * r * .

The weddingreturns wi tht i m e .

After the1 3 5 m e r r i l y .

guestsruur* begin to arr ive. The dromedaryciuroothe br ida l cos tumes jus t in the n ick o f

wedding and the coronat ion everybody dances

The fes t i v i t ieso ,u l * . r : over , n igh tN"* rop has fa11en, thestarsruor* have risen in the sky. xinsi Babar and gueenCelesteo,ur* are indeed very happy.

202 J. Lachlan Mackenzie and M. Evelien Keizer

Now the world is asleep. The g"uestsaivrop have gone home,L4 0 happy, tbougb t i red f rom too much dancing. Theyo,"r* wiLl

long remember th is great celebrat ion.And Dow King Babar and Queen Celeste, both eager for

further adventures, set out on their honeymoon in agorgeous ye l low ba l loon.

{ .3 Connentary

11. 1-{ : In the great forest occupies Pl , as a Locat ivesatel l i te, and a Ti t tLe elephant occupies S. In the greatforest has been analysed as a NewTop, s ince the greatfo res t i s re fe r red to in I I . 74 and 85 ; a T i t t le eTephanthas also been treated as NewTop ( ignor ing the t i t le)s i n c e t h e D - T o p i c r r B a b a r t h e l i t t l e e l e p h a n t r r r e g u l a r l ycomes back in the later text .