Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

11.2.2.Topic drop

quickinfo

The notions topic and comment are used in the semantic description of sentences: the topic of a sentence is the entity about which something is said, while the further statement made about this entity is the comment; cf. Crystal (1991). The topic-comment division may coincide with the subject-predicate division, but this is not necessarily the case. In the question-answer pair in (34), for instance, the topicalized object pronoun die'that' refers to the topic. The term topic drop refers to the fact that such topics can be omitted if certain conditions are met. In (34), this results in a V1-structure; cf. Jansen (1981:ch.5). We will argue this to be a phonetic phenomenon: despite being not pronounced, the pronoun is syntactically present.

a.	Weet	jij	waar	Jan	is?
	know	you	where	Jan	is
	'Do you know where Jan is?'

b.	Nee,	(diei)	heb	ik ti	niet	gezien?
	no	that	have	I	not	seen
	'No, I havenʼt seen him.'

Topic drop requires that the reference of the topic can be reconstructed from the context (which is known as the recoverability condition); cf. Weerman (1989:53ff.). The examples in this section provide the reference in the preceding question, but it may also be expressed in other ways. It should further be noted that Thrift (2003: Section 2.3) found that acceptability judgments made by speakers depend on the person features of the omitted topic; omission of arguments referring to (sets of individuals including) the speaker and, especially, the hearer are often judged to be unacceptable. Thrift suggests that this is due to the fact that the reference of first and second person pronouns shifts in conversation due to turn-taking, which may also account for the fact that first person pronouns are easily dropped in ego-documents and monologues, in which turn-taking does not play a role. The data in Jansen (1981) and Thrift (2003) further suggest that in speech topic drop is more frequent and considered more common with objects than with subjects.
Example (34b) has shown that topics can be topicalized and then occupy the sentence-initial position. The question-answer pairs in (35) show, however, that this is not obligatory: the topic may also occur in the middle field of the clause.

a.	Ken	jij	Het beleg van Laken van Walter van den Broeck?
	know	you	Het beleg van Laken by Walter van den Broeck
	'Do you know Het beleg van Laken by Walter van den Broeck?'

b.	Ja,	ik	heb	het/dat	met plezier	gelezen.
	yes,	I	have	it/that	with pleasure	read
	'Yes, Iʼve enjoyed reading it.'

b'.	Ja,	dat	heb	ik	met plezier	gelezen.
	yes	that	have	I	with pleasure	read
	'Yes, Iʼve enjoyed reading it.'

Pronouns in the middle field differ from those in sentence-initial position in that the former can be either referential ( het'it') or demonstrative ( dat'that'), whereas the latter are normally demonstrative. This is probably related to the fact that topicalized phrases must bear accent, while referential pronouns are normally unstressed. Note that in some cases, referential and demonstrative pronouns are even in complementary distribution as many speakers reject demonstratives in the middle field if their antecedent is +animate. This will become clear by comparing the question-answer pair in (36) to the one in (34).

a.	Weet	jij	waar	Jan	is?
	know	you	where	Jan	is
	'Do you know where Jan is?'

b.	Nee,	ik	heb hem/??die	niet	gezien.
	no	I	have him/that	not	seen
	'No, I havenʼt seen him.'

The examples in (37) show, however, that topic drop is only possible in topicalization constructions: omission of the pronoun in the middle field of the clause, as in (37a), results in an inappropriate response to (35a).

a.	$	Ja,	ik	heb	met plezier	gelezen.	inappropriate response to (35a)
		yes,	I	have	with pleasure	read
		'Yes, Iʼve enjoyed reading.'

b.	Ja,	heb	ik	met plezier	gelezen.	appropriate response to (35a)
	yes	have	I	with pleasure	read
	'Yes, Iʼve enjoyed reading it.'

The difference in appropiateness of the two discourse continuations in (37) is due to the fact that the verb lezen'to read' receives a pseudo-intransitive interpretation if the omitted pronoun is part of the middle field of the clause but not if it is topicalized. This strongly suggests that the pronoun is still syntactically present in the V1-construction in (37b). Additional support for the hypothesis that the initial position of the V1-constructions of this type is syntactically filled is provided by the fact that topic drop is also allowed with R-pronouns extracted from pronominal PPs like er/daar ... van in the (b)-examples in (38). Given that the PP-complement of the verb horen obligatorily has a nominal complement, the omitted topic must be syntactically present in (38b').

a.	Weet	jij	wat	een tapuit	is?
	know	you	what	a wheatear	is
	'Do you know what a wheatear is?'

b.	Nee,	ik	heb	*(er/daar)	nog	nooit	van	gehoord.
	no	I	have	there/there	still	never	of	heard
	'No, Iʼve never heard of it before.'

b'.	Nee,	(daar)	heb	ik	nog nooit	van	gehoord.
	no	there	have	I	still never	of	heard
	'No, Iʼve never heard of it before.'

The discussion above leads to the conclusion that topic drop constructions have a syntactically realized, but phonetically empty constituent in sentence-initial position. This in turn suggests that topic drop constructions involve a (phonetically empty) topic operator, [CP OPTopic Vfinite [TP .......]], or elision of a topic in sentence-initial position: [CPTopic Vfinite [TP .......]]; see Jansen (1981:ch.5), Thrift (2003) and Barbiers (2007) for discussion. Analyses of this sort are supported by the fact that topic drop is excluded in questions; the pronoun dat cannot be dropped in the two (b)-examples in (39) because the sentence-initial positions are already occupied by, respectively, the wh-phrase wanneer and the phonetically empty question operator OPpolar discussed in Section 11.2.1.

a.		Het beleg van Laken is een interessant en onderhoudend boek.
		Het beleg van Laken is an interesting and entertaining book

b.	Zo,	wanneer	heb	je	*(dat)	gelezen?
	so	when	have	you	that	read
	'Really, when did you read that?'

b'.	Zo, OPpolar	heb	je	*(dat)	gelezen?
	so	have	you	that	read
	'Really, have you read that?'

More evidence is provided by the fact that topic drop can be applied to a single constituent only. First consider the examples in (40), which show that topic drop may affect subjects and (in)direct objects alike; cf. Jansen (1981:ch.5).

a.	Waar	is Jan?	(Die)	is al	naar huis.	subject
	where	is Jan	that	is already	to home
	'Where is Jan? He has gone home already.'

b.	Waar	is Jan?	(Die)	heb	ik	weggestuurd.	direct object
	where	is Jan	that	have	I	away-send
	'Where is Jan? Iʼve dismissed him.'

c.	Waar	is Jan?	(Die)	heb	ik	een boottocht	aangeboden.	indirect object
	where	is Jan	that	have	I	a boat.trip	prt.-offered
	'Where is Jan? Iʼve offered him a boat trip.'

The examples in (41) show that R-parts of pronominal PPs may also be dropped provided that the PP can be split; applying topic drop to the R-part of the pronominal PP in the reaction to the question in (41c') is unacceptable because R-extraction from temporal adverbial phrases is also excluded—it is instead the adverbial pro-form dan'then' in (41c) that is dropped; see Thrift (2003: Section 2.3) and the references cited there for more discussion.

a.	Hoe	loopt	het project?	(Daar)	praten	we later	over.	PP-complement
	how	walks	the project	there	talk	we later	about
	'How is the project going? Weʼll talk about that later.'

b.	Wat	doe	je	met die kist?	(Daar)	stop	ik	boeken	in.	complementive
	what	do	you	with that box	there	put	I	books	in
	'What will you do with that box? I will put books in it.'

Wil

jij

koffie

na het eten?

Nee,

(dan)

heb

liever

thee.

adverb

want

you

coffee

after the meal

then

have

rather

tea

'Would you like coffee after dinner? No, I prefer tea then.'

c'.		Wil	jij	koffie na het eten?	*Nee,	(daar) heb	ik	liever thee	na.
		want	you	coffee after the meal	no	there	have I	rather tea	after

Despite the fact that topic drop may apply to a large set of clausal constituents, it is impossible to construct cases in which topic drop applies to more than one constituent at the same time; although the subject and the direct object in the two (b)-examples in (42) are both possible targets for topic drop individually, the unacceptability of (42c) shows that they cannot be dropped simultaneously. This follows immediately on the assumption that topic drop requires the topic to be in clause-initial position, and this position can only contain a single constituent.

a.	Wat	doet	Peter met zijn kapotte printer?
	what	does	Peter with his broken printer
	'What will Peter do about his broken printer?'

b.	(Die)	gooit	hem	natuurlijk	weg.	subject
	that	throws	him	of. course	away
	'Heʼll throw it away, of course.'

b'.	(Die)	gooit	hij	natuurlijk	weg.	direct object
	that	throws	he	of.course	away
	'Heʼll throw it away, of course.'

c.	*	Gooit	natuurlijk	weg.	subject + direct object
		throws	of.course	away

Topic drop is sensitive to a recoverability condition: the substantive content of the dropped topic must be reconstructible from the context. This is illustrated by means of the examples in (43), which show that topic drop of a subject does not affect subject-verb agreement. The fact that there is subject-verb agreement in examples such as (43) of course constitutes additional evidence for the hypothesis that the topic is syntactically present.

a.	Waar	is Jan?	(Die)	is3p,sg	al	naar huis.
	where	is Jan	that	is	already	to home
	'Where is Jan? He has gone home already.'

b.	Waar	zijn	Jan en Marie?	(Die)	zijn3p,sg	al	naar huis.
	where	is	Jan and Marie	those	are	already	to home
	'Where is Jan? They have gone home already.'

The same is shown by examples like (44a&b); since reflexive pronouns must have a syntactically present antecedent in their clause, we have to assume that it is present even after topic drop. The examples further show that the form of the reflexive pronoun is determined by the person feature of the omitted topic.

a.	Wat	is er	met je	gebeurd?	(Iki)	heb	mezelfi	gesneden.
	what	is there	with you	happened	I	have	myself	cut
	'What has happened to you? Iʼve cut myself.'

b.	Wat	is	er	met Peter	gebeurd?	(Diei)	heeft	zichzelfi	gesneden.
	what	is	there	with Peter	happened	that	has	himself	cut
	'What has happened with Peter? He has cut himself.'

Examples such as (44a) are sometimes considered to be cases of "diary drop" (which can also be found in English); see Haegeman (1990). Diary drop always involves the first person pronoun ik'I' and is typically found in ego-documents and letter but it also occurs in speech and folk songs. A typical example of the latter is found in the onset of the following traditional "clapping" song: cf. handjeklappen'to strike a bargain by clapping hands'. That we are dealing with diary drop is clear from the fact that there are several versions of this song in which the subject pronoun is overtly expressed (which is readily possible without affecting the meter by the use of the proclitic form k'I'); see liederenbank.nl for alternative versions.

		Klap, ging naar de markt/Kocht	een koe/Stukje lever toe/…
		clap went to the market/bought	a cow/piece [of] liver extra/…
		'I went to the market and bought a cow. I got a piece of liver extra, …'

Although we do not see any compelling reason for assigning subject drop a special syntactic status in Dutch, we added the examples in (46) to show that the number specification of the omitted topic is likewise relevant: reciprocals like elkaar'each other' normally have a plural antecedent.

a.	Wat	hebben	Jan en Els	gedaan?	(Diei)	hebben	met elkaari	gevochten.
	what	have	Jan and Els	done	those	have	with each.other	fought
	'What have Jan and Els done? Theyʼve fought with each other.'

b.	*	Wat	heeft	Jan gedaan?	(Diei)	heeft	met elkaari	gevochten.
		what	has	Jan done	that	has	with each.other	fought

A final illustration of the fact that the substantive content of an elided topic must be reconstructible from the context is given in (47). These examples show that supplementives and floating quantifiers can be used despite the fact that they are normally associated with a noun phrase in their own clause.

a.	Waarom is Jan gearresteeerd?	Tja,	(die)	liep	naakt	op straat.
	why is Jan arrested	well,	that	walked	nude	on street
	'Why has Jan been arrested? Well, he walked in the street nude.'

b.	Ken	je	deze boeken? Ja,	(die)	heb	ik	allemaal	gelezen.
	know you	these books	yes	those	have	I	all	read
	'Do you know these books? Yes, I have read them all.'

This section has discussed V1-clauses with topic drop and has shown that there is ample evidence that the initial position of such clauses is syntactically filled by some phonetically empty constituent. Topic-drop constructions thus confirm the claim that the V1 order is merely a superficial phonetic phenomenon.

References:

Barbiers, Sjef2007On the periphery of imperative and declarative clauses in Dutch and GermanWurff, Wim van der (ed.)Imperative clauses in generative grammar. Studies in honour of Frits BeukemaAmsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins95-112
Crystal, David1991A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (third edition)Blackwell Publisher
Erica Thrift2003Object Drop in the L1 Acquisition of DutchAmsterdamUniversity of AmsterdamThesis
Erica Thrift2003Object Drop in the L1 Acquisition of DutchAmsterdamUniversity of AmsterdamThesis
Erica Thrift2003Object Drop in the L1 Acquisition of DutchAmsterdamUniversity of AmsterdamThesis
Erica Thrift2003Object Drop in the L1 Acquisition of DutchAmsterdamUniversity of AmsterdamThesis
Haegeman, Liliane1990Non-overt subjects in diary contextsMascaró, Joan & Nespor, Marina (eds.)Grammar in progress. Glow essays for Henk van RiemsdijkDordrecht/ProvidenceForis Publications167-174
Jansen, Frank1981Syntaktische konstrukties in gesproken taalAmsterdamHuis aan de drie grachten
Jansen, Frank1981Syntaktische konstrukties in gesproken taalAmsterdamHuis aan de drie grachten
Jansen, Frank1981Syntaktische konstrukties in gesproken taalAmsterdamHuis aan de drie grachten
Jansen, Frank1981Syntaktische konstrukties in gesproken taalAmsterdamHuis aan de drie grachten
Weerman, Fred1989The V2 conspiracy. A synchronic and a diachronic analysis of verbal positions in Germanic languagesDordrecht/ProvidenceForis Publications

⇑ Back to top

About this article

Author(s): Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver

Category: Dutch Syntax

Publication date: 22 November 2023

Keywords: OperatorPolarityQuestionTopicTopic OperatorTopic DropYes/no-questionsVerb-first

report errorprintcite

Jump to:

introduction
references
related articles