Revue semestrielle de linguistique et littératures romanes

Écho des études romanes 2012, 8(1):205-216 | DOI: 10.32725/eer.2012.016

Topic-focusa articulation of isotopyEnglish

Radim SOVA
Masaryk University, Brno

L'article traite des phénomènes linguistiques au niveau dépassant celui de la phrase. En particulier, il examine comment l'analyse textuelle peut être améliorée en complétant le programme de la sémantique interprétative, comme imaginé par François Rastier (cf. RASTIER, 1987, 2001), à savoir sa théorie des isotopies, par des aspects élémentaires de l'articulation thématico-rhématique (ATR), ainsi que de la liaison et de la nonliaison contextuelles, tels que élaborés dans la tradition linguistique pragoise (cf. MATHESIUS, 1924, 1975 ; SGALL, 1967 ; HAJIÈOVÁ, 1973, 1975 ; SGALL, HAJIÈOVÁ, BURÁÒOVÁ, 1980 ; DANE©, 1974, 1985 ; FIRBAS, 1992 ; DU©KOVÁ, 1999).

The paper deals with linguistic phenomena at suprasentential level. In particular, it looks into how textual analysis can be enhanced by supplementing the Parisian programme of interpretive semantics, as devised by François Rastier, namely his theory of isotopies, with elementary aspects of topic-focus articulation (TFA), as well as contextual boundness (CB) and contextual non-boundness (CN), as elaborated within the Praguian linguistic tradition (V. Mathesius, P. Sgall, E. Hajièová, F. Dane¹, J. Firbas), and how the descriptive power of the former can be increased by the latter. In this respect, it is argued that two types of TFA phenomena interact during any process of textual interpretation: those of topic-focus articulation at the level of sentence, conceiving lexical morphs as thematic (T) and/or rhematic (R), as well as contextually bound (CB) and/or contextually non-bound (CN), and those of topic-focus articulation at the level of isotopy, with each isotopy being conceived as structured around a center (an abstract semantic unit) and periphery (a span of concrete utterances). Two types of such interaction are described, each defined by either correlation, or non-correlation of the CB and CN semes at the levels of isotopy and sentence, respectively: thematic-rhematic isotopy, induced by co-occurrence of the CB seme of the center and the CB seme of the periphery; and thematic-rhematic allotopy (i.e. non-isotopy), induced by co-occurrence of the CB seme of the center and the CN seme of the periphery. Since topic-focus isotopies and allotopies can be perceived as members of privative oppositions, a tentative system of such oppositions is presented, based on linguistic analyses of selected European Commission texts drafted in English and their Czech translations. The author's ultimate intention is to show that the semantic features of topic-focus articulation at the sentential and suprasentential levels are both structurally parallel and functionally complementary.

Keywords: center and periphery; cohesion; contextual boundness; contextualnon-boundness; interpretive semantics; isotopy; rheme; seme; thematic progression; theme; topic-focus articulation

Published: June 11, 2012  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
SOVA, R. (2012). Topic-focusa articulation of isotopy. Écho des études romanes, 8(1), 205-216. doi: 10.32725/eer.2012.016
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. COªERIU Eugenio (1980), Textlinguistik: eine Einführung, ed. ALBRECHT Jörn, Tübingen, Narr.
    2. DANE© Franti¹ek (1974), Functional Sentence Perspective and the Organization of the Text, Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective, Praha, Academia, p. 106-128. Go to original source...
    3. DANE© Franti¹ek (1985), Vìta a text, Praha, Academia.
    4. DU©KOVÁ Libu¹e (1999), Studies in the English Language. Part 1, Part 2, Praha, Karolinum.
    5. FIRBAS Jan (1992), Functional sentence perspective in written and spoken communication, Cambridge University Press.
    6. GREIMAS Algirdas Julien (1986), Sémantique structurale, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France.
    7. HAJIÈOVÁ Eva (1973), Negation and Topic vs. Comment, Philologica Pragensia 16, p. 81-93.
    8. HAJIÈOVÁ Eva (1975), Negace a presupozice ve významové stavbì vìty, Praha, Academia.
    9. KATZ Jerrold J., FODOR Jerry A. (1963), The Structure of Semantic Theory, Language 39, p. 170-210. Go to original source...
    10. KATZ Jerrold J., POSTAL Paul M. (1964), An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Description, Cambridge (Mass.), MIT Press.
    11. MATHESIUS Vilém (1924), Nìkolik poznámek o funkci podmìtu v moderní angliètinì, Èasopis pro moderní filologii 10, p. 244-248.
    12. MATHESIUS Vilém (1975), A Functional Analysis of Present Day English on a General Linguistic Basis, ed. VACHEK Josef, The Hague - Paris, Mouton (Janua linguarum, Series Practica 208) & Praha, Academia. Go to original source...
    13. POTTIER Bernard (1992), Sémantique générale, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France.
    14. RASTIER François (1987), Sémantique interprétative, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France.
    15. RASTIER François (2001), Arts et sciences du texte, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France. Go to original source...
    16. SGALL Petr (1967), Functional Sentence Perspective in a Generative Description, Prague Studies in Mathematical Linguistics 2, p. 203-225.
    17. SGALL Petr, HAJIÈOVÁ Eva, BURÁÒOVÁ Eva (1980), Aktuální èlenìní vìty v èe¹tinì, Praha, Academia.

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content