UC Berkeley Dissertations, Department of Linguistics Title The Functions and Evolution of Topic and Focus Markers Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/450756hb Author Radetzky, Paula Publication Date 2002 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California The Functions and Evolution of Topic and Focus Markers by Paula Kadose Radetzky B.A. (Columbia University) 1991 M.A. (University of California, Berkeley) 1996 A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics in the GRADUATE DIVISION of the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY Committee in charge: Professor Richard A. Rhodes, Co-chair Professor Eve E. Sweetser, Co-chair Professor H. Mack Horton Spring 2002 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Abstract The Functions and Evolution of Topic and Focus Markers by Paula Kadose Radetzky Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics University of California, Berkeley Professors Richard A. Rhodes and Eve E. Sweetser, Co-chairs This dissertation examines the notions of topic and focus from both synchronic and diachronic points of view. Previous works have almost exclusively treated these concepts synchronically, and the historical studies which do exist have not successfully traced and motivated the individual stages of development. The sections on topic first propose and give cross-linguistic evidence for the following path of grammaticalization: locative/ contrastive topic marker > marker > marker This overview is followed by two text-based studies, one of the Japanese topic marker wa and the other of the Greek particle de. Because of their long written traditions, these two languages allow us to contextually view and motivate the intermediate stages of grammaticalization. The last part of the dissertation is a discussion of focus. It begins by developing a synchronic theory involving different levels of highlighting, and then it presents case studies of data primarily from Japanese and Korean, examining in detail the mechanisms by which demonstratives and copulas become focus markers in these languages. The analysis 1 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. presented also provides an explanation for hitherto unaccounted-for distributional facts about the Japanese and Korean focus markers. Topic and focus have been seen by linguists as widespread phenomena cross- Iinguistically, and yet it has proven difficult to define these intuitively important analytic units. A functional and diachronic approach helps both to elucidate their nature and to explain the complexities which have made them hard for analysts to pin down. 2 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Acknowledgments The set of problems addressed in this dissertation have occupied my thoughts during much of my career at Berkeley. Throughout that time I have received help, encouragement, and valuable criticism from more people than I can name here. There are a few. however, without whose help this project would never have come to fruition. My dissertation co-chairs. Richard Rhodes and Eve Sweetser. have provided advice and encouragement throughout the whole process, and especially at the end. I would also like to thank Mack Horton. Dan Slobin. and Elizabeth Traugott. who offered their expertise and good cheer. To my great friend and advocate. Bill Weigel. I owe special thanks. Others who provided advice, read chapters, and were otherwise generous in their intellectual and emotional support include: Masamitsu Akahane, Melinda Chen. Yoon-Suk Chung. Charles Fillmore, Michael Fishlen. Noriko Fujii. Andrew Garrett,Tetsuo Harada. Gary Holland. Heather Rose Jones. Terry Kaufman. Paul Kay. Alex Madonik. Seiichi Makino. James Matisoff. John McWhorter. Kyung-Hwan Mo, Koji Nabeshima. Jason Patent. Barbara Ruch.Tomoko Yamashita Smith. Tony Smith. Leonard Talmy. and Enric Vallduvi. Part of the gestation period for this dissertation occurred in Taiwan. During my stay there, many Austronesianists provided assistance, suggestions, and feedback: Edith Aldridge. Robert Blust. Dah-An Ho.Tien-Hsin Hsin. Lillian Huang. Paul Li. Malcolm Ross. Shigeru Tsuchida. and Elizabeth Zeitoun. For welcoming me into their homes and providing me with a sense of community, 1 would especially like to thank my friends from i Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the field: Hatchan. Subali Ismahasan, Inadanedeke and Laa?u Lauracana. Utay Raqix. Dagoy and Pi?i Tabuyana, Isuz Tamapima. Kilakilau Tumamadikisase, Abas Utay, Api Zhu. and Paupau and three other dogs. The ideas contained in this dissertation I dedicate to my parents, Harold Rogers (ne Harold Radetzky) and Sophie F. Rogers (nee Kadose. Fumie). ii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter I Introduction The study of topic and focus marking encompasses two generally disparate areas of inquiry. In the area of diachrony, the evolution of discourse markers is not so well understood that it can be analyzed in the almost mechanical way that sound change can. In the area of synchronic grammatical theory, the very questions of what it means to be a topic or to be focused have not been given widely agreed-upon answers. This dissertation will address both areas, each controversial in its own right, using the tools of cognitive grammar and grammaticalization theory to bring a degree of order to each. The methods used in historical linguistics have traditionally consisted of comparative and typological studies. Until fairly recently, comparative linguists have tended to concentrate on establishing phonological correspondences and etymologies for lexical items (e.g.. Meillet 1937, Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1984 f 19951). Even in the cases where comparative linguists have examined non-Iexical constructions, either their work has had as its main goal to reconstruct proto-languages (e.g.. Lehmann 1974) or, when not aimed at reconstruction, has been theory-driven rather than data-driven (e.g., Lightfoot 1979, Hawkins 1983). Neither of these kinds of studies include the newer methodologies of historical discourse and text analysis. This is particularly true of studies of topic and focus. In the rare cases where topic and focus constructions have been treated diachronically, the emphasis has been on word order (e.g., Lehmann 1973, Lehmann 1974, Vennetnann 1974, Givon 1979, Heine & Reh 1984)—and, in fact, without the tools that I Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. grammaticalization theory provides, such as the notions of decategorialization, scopal increase, situational ambiguity, bridging contexts, and layering, there is not much beyond word order reconstruction that is possible. Furthermore, the traditional historical linguist’s focus on (a) forms extant at a certain point in time and (b) the description of how they arose generally allows for little reference to discourse and pragmatics. The result has often been superficial and not sufficiently explanatory. This is paralleled in the field of historical morphology, where traditional historical linguists have tended to focus on the end result of grammaticalization. that is. fully morphologized items. Not having the tools of modem grammaticalization theory, historical linguists have not conceived of the mechanism a language chooses for expressing a certain idea as being one of a constrained set of several possible constructions, nor have they investigated whether layering had occurred—i.e.. whether other isofunctional constructions had ever existed simultaneously in the language. The traditional understanding of the mechanisms of change has. in fact, often included little more than the Neogrammarian maxims of regularity and gradualness. In sum. then, traditional comparative linguistics did not often provide cognitively plausible explanations for the steps involved in semantic change and grammaticalization. In contrast, grammaticalization theory offers more powerful tools for analyzing the semantics of topic and focus. The notions of topic and focus have proven elusive to modem synchronic linguistics; indeed, few researchers can agree on how to characterize the notions and incorporate them into a theory of grammar (e.g.. Chafe 1976, Reinhart 1982, Portner & Yabushita 1988, Lambrecht 1994, Biiring 1997, Vallduvf 1992). However, we shall see below that synchronic theories concerning topic can be refined and made more precise by looking at how sentence-initial locative phrases can evolve into topics over time. This is because, as grammaticalization theory predicts, remnants of the space-building semantics (Fauconnier I98S, Fauconnier 1997) inherent in the locative stage carry over into the semantics of the topic stage. My position, then, is not that synchrony 2 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. must recapitulate diachrony but that often, by examining such notions as topic and focus in conjunction with diachrony, we can more accurately characterize the synchronic state of affairs. It is worth noting that this application of grammaticalization theory is broader than is understood by many linguists, who conceive of grammaticalization as taking place at the word or morpheme level.