Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T18:56:14.890Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conditionals are Topics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

John Haiman
John Haiman*
Affiliation:
University of Manitoba
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Conditional clauses and topics are marked identically in a number of unrelated languages. This is a surprising fact, since they are not usually considered to be related categories. Nevertheless, if formal similarity reflects similarity in meaning, they must indeed be related. A review of analyses of conditionals (in the philosophical literature) and of topics (primarily in linguistics) reveals that, in fact, their definitions are very similar. Moreover, it is possible to motivate revisions to these definitions by which they become virtually identical. This paper thus justifies the method of basing semantic analysis of a construction on a cross-linguistic examination of its superficial form.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 54 , Issue 3 , September 1978 , pp. 564 - 589
Copyright
Copyright © 1978 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Andersen, H. 1973. Abductive and deductive change. Lg. 49.765–93.Google Scholar
Austin, J. 1975. How to do things with words. 2nd ed. London: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bocheński, I. 1961. A history of formal logic. Translated by Thomas, I. South Bend, IN: Notre Dame University Press.Google Scholar
Borges, J. 1962. Funes the Memorious. In his Labyrinths, ed. by Yates, D. & Irby, J., 59–66. New York: New Directions.Google Scholar
Brekle, H. 1970. Generative Satzsemantik und transformationelle Syntax im System der englischen Nominalkomposition. München: Fink.Google Scholar
Carroll, J., and Casagrande, J. 1959. The function of language classification in behavior. Readings in social psychology, ed. by Maccoby, E. et al., 3rd ed., 18–31. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. 1972. Discourse structure and human knowledge. Language comprehension and the acquisition of knowledge, ed. by Freedle, R. & Carroll, J., 41–69. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, and topics. In Li, 25–56.Google Scholar
Chao, Y. R. 1968. A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Church, A. 1956. An introduction to mathematical logic. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Copi, I. 1972. An introduction to logic. 4th ed. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Cowan, M. 1969. Tzotzil grammar. Norman: Summer Institute of Linguistic thes of University of Oklahoma.Google Scholar
Curme, G. 1931. A grammar of the English language, III: Syntax. Boston: Heath.Google Scholar
Dahl, O. 1974. Topic-comment structure in a generative grammar with a semantic base. In Daneš 1974a:75-80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daneš, F. (ed.) 1974a. Papers on functional sentence perspective. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daneš, F. (ed.). 1974b. Functional sentence perspective and the organization of the text. In Daneš 1974a:106-28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deibler, E. 1976. Semantic relationships of Gahuku verbs. Norman: Summer Institute of Linguistics of the University of Oklahoma.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. 1974. Funktionelle Satzperspektive und Texttheorie. In Daneš 1974a: 87–105.Google Scholar
Ducrot, O. 1972. Dire et ne pas dire. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
Ducrot, O. 1973. Le preuve et le dire. Paris: Mame.Google Scholar
Firbas, J. 1964. On defining the theme in functional sentence analysis. Travaux Linguistiques de Prague 1.267–80.Google Scholar
Fraser, B. 1969. An analysis of concessive conditionals. Proceedings of the 5th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 66–75.Google Scholar
Friedman, L. 1976. The manifestation of subject, object, and topic in the American Sign Language. In Li, 128–48.Google Scholar
Goodman, N. 1955. Fact, fiction, and forecast. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. 1974a. Targets and syntactic change. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, J. 1974b. Concessives, conditionals, and verbs of volition. Foundations of Language 11:341–59.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. 1975. Neutralization and markedness assimilation: Future and subjunctive in Hua. Oceanic Linguistics 14.119–27.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. 1976a. Presuppositions in Hua. Proceedings of the 12th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 258–70.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. 1976b. Agentless sentences. Foundations of Language 14.19–53.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. 1978a. A study in polysemy: Hua ve. Studies in Language 2:1, to appear.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, J. 1978b. Hua: a Papuan Language of New Guinea. Languages and their users, ed. by Shopen, T., appear, to. New York: Winthrop.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. MS. Connective particles in Hua: an essay on the parts of speech. Oceanic Linguistics 16, to appear.Google Scholar
Hajíčová, E., and Sgall, P. 1975. Topic and focus in transformational grammar. Papers in Linguistics 8.3–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. 1967-68. Transitivity and theme in English. Journal of Linguistics 3.37-81, 197–277; 4.153–308.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. 1974. The place of ‘Functional sentence perspective’ in the system of linguistic description. In Danes 1974a:43–53.Google Scholar
Hornby, P. 1971. Surface structure and the topic-comment distinction: a developmental study. Child Development 42.1975–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1940. A Modern English grammar on historical principles, V: Syntax. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. 1972. Functional sentence perspective. Linguistic Inquiry 3.269–320.Google Scholar
Lewis, G. 1967. Turkish grammar. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Li, C. N. (ed.) 1976. Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Li, C. N. (ed.), and Thompson, S. 1976. Subject and topic: a new typology of language. In Li, 457–90.Google Scholar
Mackie, J. 1975. Causes and conditions. In Sosa, 15–38.Google Scholar
Martin, S. 1975. A reference grammar of Japanese. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mayo, B. 1970. A new approach to conditionals. Analysis 30.65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, J. 1893. A system of logic. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Paul, H. 1966. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. 7th ed. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Ramsey, F. 1931. General propositions and causality. In his Foundations of Mathematics, 237–55. London: Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Rodman, R. 1974. On left dislocation. Papers in Linguistics 7.437–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, P. 1976. The subject in Philippine languages. In Li, 491–518.Google Scholar
Schachter, P, and Otanes, F. 1972. Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Settekorn, O. 1974. Semantische Strukturen der Konditionalsätze. Kronberg/Taunus: Skriptor.Google Scholar
Sgall, P. 1974. Zum Stellung der Thema-Rhema Gliederung in der Sprachbeschreibung. In Daneš 1974a: 54–74.Google Scholar
Skeat, A. 1924. An etymological dictionary of the English language. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sosa, E. (ed.) 1975. Causation and conditionals. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. 1975. A theory of conditionals. In Sosa, 165–79.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. 1952. An introduction to logical theory. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Suppes, P. 1957. An introduction to logic. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
Vasmer, M. 1953. Russisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, I. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. 1975. Topic, focus, and deep structure. Papers in Linguistics 8.59–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar