Vilem Mathesius and Functional Sentence Perspective-Def
Vilem Mathesius and Functional Sentence Perspective-Def
Vilem Mathesius and Functional Sentence Perspective-Def
Eva Hajiov
Charles University in Prague
2.
One of the first - if not the very first comprehensive studies in what may be now called
information structure of the sentence was H.Weils (1844; English translation 1887)
monograph on the order of words. According to Weil, Words are the signs of ideas; to treat of
the order of words is, then, in a measure, to treat of the order of ideas (p. 11, quoted from the
1887 English translation). The author recognizes two types of the movement of ideas:
marche parallle and progression: If the initial notion is related to the united notion of the
preceding sentence, the march of the two sentences is to some extent parallel; if it is related to
the goal of the sentence which precedes, there is a progression in the march of the discourse
(p. 41). He also noticed a possibility of a reverse order called by him pathetic: When the
imagination is vividly impressed, or when the sensibilities of the soul are deeply stirred, the
speaker enters into the matter of his discourse at the goal. (p. 45). Weils study was not left
unnoticed by Vilm Mathesius (1907), who refers to him (though mistakenly by the date
1855), and to linguists around Zeitschrift fr Vlkerpsychologie, such as Georg v.d.
Gabelentz (1868), Hermann Paul (1886), and esp. Ph. Wegener (1885) but criticizes this
approach for the terms psychological subject and psychological predicate. Mathesius
himself prefers to characterize the relevant issues by their relation to the factual situation from
which the utterance originates using therefore the Czech (untranslatable) term aktuln
lenn (literally: the topical articulation).
Mathesius procedes from functional needs to formal means that satisfy them.
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
sentence that the sentence is about, which does not exclude hot-news sentences, i.e.
sentences which bring the addressee straight into the deep water of the news.
(b) In the same vein as in FSP, the TFA theory assumes that every item in the sentence carries
a certain degree of communicative dynamism, but it is still the basic dichotomy between the
topic of the sentence and its focus conveying an information about its topic that plays an
important role, especially with respect to the semantic interpretation of negation and its
relation to presuppositions of the sentence (see examples supporting this argument below).
(c) The TFA supporters argue that there is an important difference in the nature of the four
factors distinguished by FSP, namely that of linear arrangement, prosody, semantics and
contexts. The first two belong to the means of expression of information structure and the
other two to its functional layers.
(d) TFA is claimed to be a structure belonging to the underlying, deep syntactic structure of
sentences because the differences in TFA are semantically relevant.
From the point of view of theoretical linguistics, it is of primary importance that the Praguian
TFA theory is the first attempt to integrate the description of what was later more broadly
referred to as the information structure of the sentence into a formal description of language.
(Sgall 1967; 1979; from a more general viewpoint cf. 2009). The basic tenets of the TFA are
as follows:
(i)The dichotomy of the topic of the sentence and the focus of the sentence is specified as a
bipartition of the sentence into what the sentence is ABOUT (its topic) and what the sentence
says about the topic (its focus), in other words, the border line lies between what we are
talking about and what we are saying about it. TFA is understood as a linguistic rather than
a cognitive structuring; the bi-partition is based on the given- new strategy, but not identical to
this cognitive dichotomy, as illustrated by the following examples (the assumed position of
the intonation center is denoted by capitals):
(1) John and Mary entered the DINING-ROOM. They looked from the WINDOW (and ).
(2) Mary called Jim a REPUBLICAN. Then he insulted HER.
(3) Mary called Jim a REPUBLICAN. Then he INSULTED her.
In the second sentence of (1), it is evident that the speaker means the window of the room,
which can be characterized as an old piece of information; however, the reference to it is
placed in the focus of the sentence: the speaker is telling about them what they did. In the
second sentences of (2) and (3), both Jim and Mary are (cognitively) known since they are
referred to in the first sentence, but only (3) is linguistically structured as being about both of
them and the information in focus is the event of insulting. In (2), Mary is put into focus, as a
target of Jims insult. In addition, at least on the preferred reading, (2) implies that calling
somebody a Republican is an insult. This interpretation is supported by the different
intonation patterns of (2) and (3), as indicated by the capitals.
(ii) The semantic relevance of TFA can be best documented by the relationships between TFA
and the semantics of negation. If in terms of the aboutness relation, the Focus holds about the
Topic, then in the prototypical case of negative sentences, the Focus does not hold about the
Topic; in a secondary case, the negative sentence is about a negated topic and something is
said about this topic.
This canonical order has been tested with a series of psycholinguistic experiments (with
speakers of Czech, German and English, and more recently also on corpus material which
offers a richer and more consistent data). It is evident that different languages may differ in
some specific points of this order (e.g. in English the assumed order of selected
complementations is Temporal Actor Addressee Objective (Patient) Origin Effect
Manner Accompaniment Directional) but in general, the hypothesis seems to be plausible
and brings an interesting issue for further investigation.
A good test for the TFA theory is offered at present by the annotated electronic corpus of
Czech called Prague Dependency Treebank (PDT, see Haji 1998; Haji et al. 2006), which is
an annotated collection of Czech texts with a mark-up on three layers: (i) morphemic,
(ii) surface shape, and (iii) underlying (tectogrammatical). The current version of PDT
(annotated on all three layers of annotation) includes 3168 documents comprising the total of
49442 sentences (833357 occurrences of forms). The annotation on the tectogrammatical
layer includes an indication of TFA values in terms of contextual boundness: three TFA values
are distinguished, namely t - contextually bound non-contrastive, c contextually bound
contrastive, and f contextually non-bound. On the basis of these values an algorithm was
formulated and fully tested that performs the bipartition of the sentence into its topic and
focus. The hitherto achieved results are encouraging and offer interesting observations: e.g. in
95% of the cases the hypothesis (present also in the FSP theory, see Firbas on the transitional
character of the verb) that in Czech the boundary between Topic and Focus is in the
prototypical case signalled by the position of the verb was confirmed. Also, a comparison of
the results of the automatic procedure with human annotation has revealed that most frequent
differences, if any, concerned the difference in the assignment of the verb to topic or to focus.
This again confirms the transitional character of the verb in Czech.
The existence of a parallel syntactically annotated corpus of English and Czech offers a
further extension of the corpus-based study of TFA, with the multilingual material at hand.
Brno FSP
Prague TFA
basis x nucleus
"aboutness"
observed
emphasized, basic
transition
explicit
implicit
accompanying elements
communicative dynamism
communicative dynamism
in 'deep' structure
Svoboda: communicative
importance
"all-rheme"
recognized, "topicless"
subjective order
yes
yes
This comparison demonstrates that many ideas on what is now more generally called
information structure are already in nuce in Mathesius writings. His stimuli have been
developed fruitfully in Brno, Prague as well as by many scholars from Europe and the US
(sometimes unknowingly re-inventing the wheel, but also often bringing in new aspects and
viewpoints, not to speak about language data from typologically different languages). We also
hope to have demonstrated that a serious examination of what Levinson calls terminological
profusion and confusion, and underlying conceptual vagueness uncovers important issues
and respectable results that have served and will also serve in the future for a deeper analysis
of the communicative function of language. In the context of the conference for which this
contribution has been prepared, it is also important to recall this fruitful resource offered by
Prague English studies to the modern linguistic community.
Acknowledgement
This paper was written under the support of the grant of the Czech Republic Grant Agency
P406/12/0658; in its relevant parts, the author has been using language resources developed and/or
stored and/or distributed by the LINDAT-Clarin project of the Ministry of Education of the Czech
Republic (project LM2010013).
References:
Chamonikolasov Jana (2007), Intonation in English and Czech Dialogues. 1. vyd. Brno:
MU, 2007.
Chamonikolasov Jana (2010), Communicative perspectives in the Theory of FSP.
Linguistica Pragensia, Praha: stav pro jazyk esk AV R, XX, 2, 86-93.
Chamonikolasov Jana (in press). Approaches to the information structure of language. Peter
Lang Verlag.
Dane Frantiek (1974), Functional Sentence Perspective and the organization of the text, in
Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective, ed. by Dane F., Prague, 106-128.
Mathesius Vilm (1907), Studie k djinm anglickho slovosledu [Studies on the development
modernes, Paris. Translated as The Order of Words in the Ancient Languages Compared with
That of the Modern Languages, Boston, 1887, reedited Amsteram 1978.
Strawson P. F. (1952) , Introduction to Logical Theory. London.