Topicalization in Asian Englishes

Forms, Functions, and Frequencies of a Fronting Construction

Sven Leuckert

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• eBook ISBN: 9781351000413
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Linguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Shortlisted for the 2020 ESSE Book Award in English Language and Linguistics

This monograph is the first comprehensive study of topicalization in Asian second-language varieties of English and provides an in-depth analysis of the forms, functions, and frequencies of topicalization in four Asian Englishes. Topicalization, that is, the sentence-initial placement of constituents other than the subject, has been found to occur frequently in the English spoken by many Asians, but so far the possible reasons for this have never been scrutinized. This book closes this research gap by taking into account the structures of the major contact languages, the roles of second-language acquisition and politeness as well as other factors in order to explain why topicalization is highly frequent in some varieties such as Indian English and much less frequent in other varieties such as Hong Kong English. In addition to exploring major and minor forces involved in explaining the frequency of topicalization, the forms and functions of the feature are assessed. Central questions addressed in this regard are the following: Which syntactic constituents tend to be topicalized the most and the least frequently? Which discourse effects does topicalization achieve? How can we approach topicalization methodologically? And, lastly, which influence do language processing and production have on topicalization?

1Introduction

Asian Englishes are “contact languages par excellence” (Lange 2012a: 33; emphasis in the original) – they are the product of contact between English, brought to Asia in colonial times, and the indigenous languages spoken in the colonized countries. Mere intuition suggests that these varieties are not carbon copies of the imported English; overhearing a conversation in one of the Asian varieties would, in all likelihood, reinforce this impression. While certain features of British English (or, in the case of the Philippines, American English) have been retained, there are also many differences in pronunciation, lexis, morphology, and syntax. It is worth mentioning that such differences usually occur more frequently in spoken language than they do in written language – reading one of the local newspapers in English is usually less revealing than, for instance, listening to people converse in the market or in the streets.¹

As a difference between the spoken ‘traditional’ and spoken Asian varieties of English, the increased usage of topicalization strategies in the latter has been noted repeatedly; see, for reference, Mesthrie (1992), Lange (2012a), and Winkle (2015). Many definitions of topicalization have been proposed; Lambrecht, for instance, provides the following definition:

Finally, we can mention the case of the topicalization construction, in which a non-subject constituent is “topicalized,” i.e. marked as a topic expression by being placed in the sentence-initial position normally occupied by the tonal subject.

(1994: 147)

The following three examples from different components of the International Corpus of English (ICE) serve to illustrate the phenomenon.² In each example, the topicalized constituent is printed in bold.

(1.1)Okay one bridal bouquet uh one bridal bouquet one posy bridal bouquet is a hundred posy is about eighty hair pieces forty corsages he gave free

(ICE-SIN:S1A-002#168–169)

(1.2)But I I don’t know how it come to because I I in pronunciations I was never checked

(ICE-IND:S1A-010#79)

(1.3)But I will some of some of them I will cut and I think I will I only go on Tuesday

(ICE-HK:S1A-045#138)

In this study, I analyse topicalization in Hong Kong English (HKE), Indian English (IndE), Philippine English (PhilE), and Singapore English (SinE). I also analyse topicalization in British English (BrE) in order to be able to compare the Asian varieties of English to a European variety, which is the traditional target variety for all of the analysed varieties except PhilE. It has been noted, in spite of the apparent increased usage of topicalization in Asian varieties of English, that the phenomenon is not exclusively Asian: It is well known that speakers of other varieties employ topicalization as well,³ which is why the question is not one of existence but one of frequency.

Identifying the forms, functions, and frequencies of topicalization in four postcolonial Asian Englishes (and British English) and explaining potential differences between the varieties is the primary objective of this book. For this purpose, I have read, tagged, and analysed parts of the spoken components of the ICE corpora for Hong Kong, India, the Philippines, Singapore, and Great Britain. The ICE corpora represent an ideal source for comparing varieties: They have been (and are still being) compiled following a consistent structure; more precisely, they all consist of roughly a million words and a similar distribution of spoken and written texts for each variety. Since topicalization represents a phenomenon that alters the information structure of an utterance and is, therefore, sensitive to discourse-pragmatic decisions by speakers, spoken language was expected to show more tokens of the feature. Furthermore, “oral performance is less constrained and less conservative than written styles, so this is where innovations are most likely to surface” (Schneider 2004: 247). For this reason, the corpus files containing direct conversations, phone calls, and classroom lessons were analysed.

Studies in information structure – or, to use another term, information-packaging (cf. chapter 16 in the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language; henceforth: CGEL) – are typically complex affairs because “grammatical analysis at this level is concerned with the relationship between linguistic form and the mental states of speakers and hearers” (Lambrecht 1994: 1). According to Lambrecht, this multifaceted nature of information structure necessitates an integrated approach:

Information-structure research neither offers the comfort which many syntacticians find in the idea of studying an autonomous formal object nor provides the possibility enjoyed by sociolinguists of putting aside issues of formal structure for the sake of capturing the function of language in social interaction.

(Ibid.)

In addition to the theory-internal complexities of the field, finding variety-specific (as well as potentially overarching) motives for topicalization usage represents yet another largely unresolved issue. The origins of the differences between ‘newer’ and traditional varieties of English are frequently the topic of heated debates, but at least some influence from the indigenous languages, that is, the substrate languages, is often assumed for many of the features diverging from the input variety (cf. Gut 2011: 201). In Sharma’s words, “[s]‌urface similarities across New Englishes can be skin deep, diverging dramatically upon closer examination, due to substrate systems or substrate-superstrate interaction” (2009: 190).

For the case of topicalization, ‘topic-prominence’ in the contact languages represents a potential influence on topicalization in Asian Englishes. In highly topic-prominent languages, sentences are structured according to the topic-comment principle. In contrast to (primarily) subject-prominent languages, the topic occurs sentence-initially in such languages (see Li and Thompson 1976). Since ‘topicalization’ refers to the sentence-initial placement of constituents other than the subject, transfer from the substrate languages is a promising explanation for increased topicalization usage. While the Sinitic contact languages of HKE and SinE are considered to be prototypical topic-prominent languages (see, among others, Yip and Matthews 2011; Li and Thompson 1981), the status of the other contact languages is less clear; some publications have argued that important languages in the Indo-Aryan and Dravidian language families (as contact languages of IndE and SinE) and the Austronesian language family (as contact languages of PhilE and SinE) also show traits of topic-prominence (see Junghare 1988; Schachter and Otanes 1972).

In addition to the replication of certain structures (cf. Matras 2009), substrate influence may extend to areas that are not of a purely formal nature. Bhatt, for instance, claims that the use of undifferentiated question tags in vernacular Indian English is a reflex of a culture “where the verbal behavior is constrained, to a large extent, by politeness regulations” – choosing a default question tag over the Standard English option is, in his mind, a representation of “non-imposition [as] the essence of polite behavior” (2008: 553). Although this claim has been criticized (cf. Lange 2012a), investigating linguistic structures as reflections of cultural attitudes is of value. Establishing topic continuity has been cited as one of the primary functions of topicalization, and creating continuity in discourse is arguably another facet of being polite to the interlocutor(s).⁴ Thus, cultural habits can result in the preference of a certain structure or feature that may be used less (or not at all) in traditional varieties, and it is this phenomenon that d’Souza terms ‘grammar of culture’:

‘Grammar of culture’ is used here to mean the acceptable possibilities of behaviour within a particular culture. This includes notions of the kind of behaviour that is appropriate or expected in a given context. Since the use of language is included within the ‘acceptable possibilities of behaviour,’ some correlation may be found between socio-cultural factors and their linguistic manifestations.

(1988: 160; emphasis in the original)

While substrate influence often seems a useful first explanation for the occurrence of a non-standard feature, the sole analysis of the substrate(s) followed by the conclusion that a feature has been transferred is going to be simplistic. In the acquisition of English as a Second Language (= ESL) or English as a Foreign Language (= EFL), “[m]‌any issues such as the social context, the learner’s age and gender, motivation and type of instruction combine in myriad ways that make the learning situations of individuals virtually unique” (Gut 2011: 108). Thus, no research on a non-standard feature should simply be concluded once the presence or absence of a similar structure in the contact language has been determined.⁵ Instead, a much more promising approach takes into consideration language contact, variety status, cultural/linguistic identity, and processes of second-language acquisition (SLA) and acknowledges the complexity involved in feature selection. For the present study, I predict that several of the varieties’ substrate languages provide the pattern of topicalization and topic-comment structures. However, topicalization in all varieties is also influenced by individual speaker preferences, the input variety, the developmental phase of each variety, general processes of second-language acquisition as well as cultural habits.

In assessing the possible forms and functions of topicalization, the question needs to be asked to what extent topicalization in the analysed varieties is different from the traditional varieties of English. In a study on South African Indian English (SAIE), Mesthrie (1992) identified six differences (referred to as ‘expanded functions’) between topicalization in SAIE and ‘mainstream’ varieties of English. Two of these differences are an increased frequency of topicalization in SAIE and the interaction of topicalization with questions and negation; however, the most important differences are the topicalization of constituents other than noun phrases (NPs) and the topicalization of information that is new to the discourse. This study shows that the analysed varieties (including BrE) fulfil most of the proposed criteria. For this reason, I suggest that spoken varieties of English, in general, tend to use topicalization creatively; the main difference between the analysed varieties is of a quantitative nature.

Based on these deliberations, there are three major research questions that I address with this project:

(1)What are the frequencies, forms, and functions of topicalization in HKE, IndE, PhilE, and SinE, and do they differ significantly from BrE?

(2)Do Mesthrie’s ‘expanded functions’ of topicalization (1992) apply to the analysed varieties of English?

(3)Which factors can explain different frequencies of topicalization in the four analysed Asian Englishes?

In order to provide answers to these three questions, the book proceeds as follows:

Chapter 2 establishes the terminological and the theoretical framework for the present study. Most importantly, I discuss two core notions necessary for the subsequent chapters: ‘topic’ and ‘topicalization’. By giving a definition of ‘topic’ that combines both traditional and recent perspectives and recognizes both ‘givenness’ and ‘aboutness’ as relevant aspects in topic identification, a sound foundation for a definition of topicalization is provided. Defining what is meant by topicalization in this book forms the final part of this chapter.

Chapter 3 serves as a link between chapter 2 and chapter 4 by looking at the role of topics in some of the major contact languages of the Asian varieties under investigation. More precisely, this chapter is concerned with topic-prominence, that is, the degree to which the topic-comment principle dominates word order. Building on Li and Thompson’s criteria for topic-prominence laid out in their paper from 1976, this chapter analyses to what extent several Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, Sinitic, and Austronesian languages can be called ‘topic-prominent’.

Chapter 4 provides a general introduction to Asian Englishes and, more specifically, to the varieties I chose to include in my analysis. In the first section, I introduce the main theoretical frameworks that have been proposed for the analysis of World Englishes with a focus on Kachru’s T...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Information
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Acknowledgements
• List of Abbreviations
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Approaching topicalization
• 3 Topic-prominence in Asian contact languages
• 4 Development and variety status of four Asian Englishes
• 5 Corpus analysis: Data basis and methodology
• 6 Forms, functions, and frequencies of topicalization
• 7 Explaining topicalization frequencies
• 8 Conclusion and outlook
• References
• Index