DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.26359#0072
Renata Landgrâfovâ
Prague
Focusing on the Topic.
Some Perspectives in the Functional Generative Description of Middle
Egyptian*
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, egyptological
linguistics witnessed aboom of studies dealing with
“pragmatics”.* 1 The debate2 brought the issue into
the awareness of the egyptological community, but
died out unresolved in about 1992. Whether we
have begun to consider the problem insoluble or
whether we are just tired of the endless inconsist-
encies of terminology, articles that at least touch
on the problem of topic-focus articulation (TFA)
appear now only rarely. It is, however, my firm
belief, that TFA is an essential phenomenon of any
language,3 and that it has to be resolved before
we “step out of the chaos” of MEg grammar. The
present paper, then, is a modest contribution to
what I hope is once again to become a lively de-
bate.
Among the more problematic issues con-
nected with TFA are the various phenomena
of topic-fronting, treated under the heading
“topicalisation”. Let us start with a frequently
discussed problem, one that is, however, rarely
considered as related to topicalisation, namely
that of the “Noun + sdm=f construction. Take
the following example:
* I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Pro-
fessor Eva HAJICOVA for her counsels and gener-
ous support.
1 In general linguistics, the scope of Pragmatics is sig-
nificantly wider than in Egyptology, where it is mostly
limited to various treatments of topic and focus.
2 See, in particular, ENGLUND, FRANDSEN, 1986, Fs-
Westendorf and LingAeg land 2.
3 A change in TFA results in the change of truth con-
ditions, cf. SGALL, HAJlCOVÂ, PANEVOVÂ, 1986.
4 This is, of course, no novel view in Egyptology. For
such treatment, albeit sometimes with different termi-
nology, see eg BORGHOUTS, 1986;SCHENKEL, 1997,
(1) bjkrh=fhnrsms.w=f [Sin. R 21-22]
The falcon flew with his followers.
What is happening here?
It is a well-known fact that MEg is a prima-
rily VSO language. Here, the apparent word-
order is SVO. Apparent because the clause-
initial noun is not the subject of this sentence,
but its topic.4
A small excursus is needed at this moment,
since almost no two egyptologists seem to agree
on their terminology of TFA. Terms like theme,
rheme, topic, focus, comment, “logical” sub-
ject, “logical” predicate and others are used
quite interchangeably and with quite different
meanings.5
I shall not resolve the question here and now,
but, rather, I will introduce the terms commonly
used within the framework of FGD.6
FGD distinguishes between the meaning(s) of
a sentence - its tecto-grammatical representa-
tion(s) (TR)7 and surface syntax. The subject-
predicate dichotomy is a feature of surface syn-
tax. I do not believe that an adequate descrip-
tion of surface syntax is possible without the no-
1998; EYRE, 1986,LOPRIENO, 1995; VERNUS, 1986
and others.
5 The problem of terminology is discussed by EYRE
1986, who also gives no norm, except for making sure
that one is at least consistent.
6 Functional Generative Description, the current Prague
dependency framework as defmed in SGALL, HA-
JlCOVÂ, PANEVOVÂ, 1986.
7 The detailed description of the framework is beyond
the scope of this paper. See SGALL, HAJICOVÂ,
PANEVOVA, 1986. For its newest development, see
HAJlëOVÂ, PARTEE, SGALL, 1998. The TR is the
meaning structure of the sentence.
69
Prague
Focusing on the Topic.
Some Perspectives in the Functional Generative Description of Middle
Egyptian*
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, egyptological
linguistics witnessed aboom of studies dealing with
“pragmatics”.* 1 The debate2 brought the issue into
the awareness of the egyptological community, but
died out unresolved in about 1992. Whether we
have begun to consider the problem insoluble or
whether we are just tired of the endless inconsist-
encies of terminology, articles that at least touch
on the problem of topic-focus articulation (TFA)
appear now only rarely. It is, however, my firm
belief, that TFA is an essential phenomenon of any
language,3 and that it has to be resolved before
we “step out of the chaos” of MEg grammar. The
present paper, then, is a modest contribution to
what I hope is once again to become a lively de-
bate.
Among the more problematic issues con-
nected with TFA are the various phenomena
of topic-fronting, treated under the heading
“topicalisation”. Let us start with a frequently
discussed problem, one that is, however, rarely
considered as related to topicalisation, namely
that of the “Noun + sdm=f construction. Take
the following example:
* I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Pro-
fessor Eva HAJICOVA for her counsels and gener-
ous support.
1 In general linguistics, the scope of Pragmatics is sig-
nificantly wider than in Egyptology, where it is mostly
limited to various treatments of topic and focus.
2 See, in particular, ENGLUND, FRANDSEN, 1986, Fs-
Westendorf and LingAeg land 2.
3 A change in TFA results in the change of truth con-
ditions, cf. SGALL, HAJlCOVÂ, PANEVOVÂ, 1986.
4 This is, of course, no novel view in Egyptology. For
such treatment, albeit sometimes with different termi-
nology, see eg BORGHOUTS, 1986;SCHENKEL, 1997,
(1) bjkrh=fhnrsms.w=f [Sin. R 21-22]
The falcon flew with his followers.
What is happening here?
It is a well-known fact that MEg is a prima-
rily VSO language. Here, the apparent word-
order is SVO. Apparent because the clause-
initial noun is not the subject of this sentence,
but its topic.4
A small excursus is needed at this moment,
since almost no two egyptologists seem to agree
on their terminology of TFA. Terms like theme,
rheme, topic, focus, comment, “logical” sub-
ject, “logical” predicate and others are used
quite interchangeably and with quite different
meanings.5
I shall not resolve the question here and now,
but, rather, I will introduce the terms commonly
used within the framework of FGD.6
FGD distinguishes between the meaning(s) of
a sentence - its tecto-grammatical representa-
tion(s) (TR)7 and surface syntax. The subject-
predicate dichotomy is a feature of surface syn-
tax. I do not believe that an adequate descrip-
tion of surface syntax is possible without the no-
1998; EYRE, 1986,LOPRIENO, 1995; VERNUS, 1986
and others.
5 The problem of terminology is discussed by EYRE
1986, who also gives no norm, except for making sure
that one is at least consistent.
6 Functional Generative Description, the current Prague
dependency framework as defmed in SGALL, HA-
JlCOVÂ, PANEVOVÂ, 1986.
7 The detailed description of the framework is beyond
the scope of this paper. See SGALL, HAJICOVÂ,
PANEVOVA, 1986. For its newest development, see
HAJlëOVÂ, PARTEE, SGALL, 1998. The TR is the
meaning structure of the sentence.
69