Topic chain

Topic chain (话题链, huàtí liàn) refers to the continuity of a topic maintained by a number of consecutive clauses in discourse (cf. Tsao 1979, Li and Thompson 1981: 659, Haiman and Munro 1983, Givón 1983, Chu 1998: 324). Topic in Chinese most likely takes the subject position of a clause, as illustrated in (7.11).

(7.11) 我们在中国学习的时候，一点儿都没有时间玩儿，每天除了学习就是学习，

有时候连睡觉的时间都没有。

wŏmen zài zhōngguó xuéxí de shíhòu, yīdiănr dōu méiyŏu shījiān wánr, mĕitiān chúle xuéxí jiùshì xuéxí, yŏu shíhòu lián shuìjiào de shíjiān dōu méiyŏu.

“When we were studying in China, (we) did not have any time for playing. Every day, (we) studied then studied some more. Sometimes (we) didn’t even have enough time to sleep.”

Wŏmen “we” is the topic of the paragraph in (7.11). Notice that this topic continues in the following three clauses after its first appearance in the first clause even though the topic is not visibly seen in the last three clauses. Despite these omissions, native Chinese speakers have no difficulty whatsoever understanding the topic of the three clauses. The continuity of the topic shared by the four clauses in (7.11) is one topic chain. Some Chinese researchers (e.g. Tsao 1979, Li 2002) believe that the topic chain is the basic discourse unit in Chinese for discourse coherence. Others (e.g. Shi 1989, Chu 1998) also consider the topic chain a syntactic unit: That is, a topic chain can be formed by a number of clauses that function as a part of sentence. For the convenience of students, I include topic chains that are formed among both sentences and clauses (i.e. subordinate clauses).

What makes the topic chain even more appealing to Chinese pedagogy specialists is the functional difference between its use in Chinese and other languages such as English. Comparing the Chinese paragraph in (7.11) with its English translation, we see that the same topic in the last three clauses cannot be omitted in English as it is in Chinese. This difference leads Chinese pedagogy specialists to explore possible strategies in teaching native English-speaking students how to compose a coherent Chinese discourse structure using topic chain cohesion. Li (2002) suggests that topic chains in Chinese code topic continuity through various syntactic constructions and predications, but topic chains in English are only used among certain constructions, such as the one expressing a temporal reference illustrated in (7.12).

(7.12a) “After finishing our homework, we went to a coffee shop.”

做完功课以后，我们去了一家咖啡馆。

zuòwán gōngkè yĭhòu, wŏmen qù le yì jiā kāfēi guăn.

(7.12b) * “After we finished our homework, went to a coffee shop”

我们做完功课以后，去了一家咖啡馆。

wŏmen zuòwán gōngkè yĭhòu, qù le yì jiā kāfēi guăn.

(7.12c) After we finished our homework, we went to a coffee shop”

???我们做完功课以后，我们去了一家咖啡馆。

wŏmen zuòwán gōngkè yĭhòu, wŏmen qù le yì jiā kāfēi guăn.

The three way comparison among (7.12a)–(7.12c) shows that the topic in Chinese topic chains can be omitted when there is one overt topic in that chain.

The topic in an English topic chain, however, can only be omitted when it is in a subordinate clause expressing a temporary sequence. In addition, the appearance of the same topic in both clauses of (7.12c) is perfectly acceptable in English but is considered highly redundant, thus hardly acceptable in Chinese. Let us examine more topic chains:

(7.13) 你不是不知道，有很多罪犯，前脚出了监狱，后脚就进枪店，买了枪就到处杀 人。枪店也不查买枪的是什么人，不管他是不是杀过人放过火，脑子正常不正 常，只要给钱，他们就卖。(From Integrated Chinese II, by Liu et al., 1997: 328)

Nĭ bú shì bù zhīdào, yŏu hĕnduō zuìfàn, qián jiăo chū le jiānyù, hòu jiăo jiù jìn qiāng diàn, măi le qiāng jiù dàochù shā rén. qiāng diàn yĕ bù chá măi qiāng de shì shénme rén, bùguăn tā shì bú shì shā guò rén fàng guò huŏ, năo zi zhèngcháng bú zhèngcháng, zhĭyào gĕi qián, tāmen jiù mài.

“It is not that you do not know that many criminals enter a gun shop as soon as they are released from prison. The gun shop does not check their background, nor does (it) care about whether they (i.e. the buyers) ever killed anybody or whether (they) are mentally abnormal. They (i.e. the people in the gun shop) sell guns as long as (they) are paid.”

There are different layers of topics and topic chains in the paragraph given in (7.13). The first layer has a topic 你 (nĭ “you”), but has no chain because the topic only occurs in one clause. The second layer has a topic 罪犯 (zuìfàn

“criminals”) and a chain, which introduces the third topic layer 枪店 (qiāngdiān

“gun shops”) and a chain. Within this third topic and chain layer, there is another chain layer with the topic, 他 (tā “he”), referring back to 罪 犯 (zuìfàn

“criminals”), namely the topic of the second layer. These intertwining chains and connections may be reiterated as follows:

First layer: Topic nĭ “you”, without a chain Second layer: Topic: zuìfàn “criminal”, with a chain

Third layer: Topic: qiāngdiàn “gun shop” with a chain Fourth layer: Topic: tā “he (i.e. the buyer)”, with a chain

These four layers of topics and topic chains provide instructional examples demonstrating that topic chains are not always arranged in linear fashion within discourse; rather, they interconnect with one another or they are “chain up” by layers. Each time a new layer is introduced, a new topic is born often in the object position, as illustrated and italicized in the following sentences.

You may not know that many criminals … (first layer) They (i.e. criminals) enter a gun shop; (second layer)

The gun shop does not care who the buyer is; (third layer) Or if he (the buyer) ever killed anybody … (fourth layer)

The way to develop a new topic is similar to that of the introduction of new information often discussed in discourse literature. Teachers interested in this subject may consult with Chu (1998) and Givón (1990). In addition to the development of multiple layers of topics and topic chains, it is also important to note that topics may be maintained, or rather chained, by a variety of sentence structures and means. Consider the situation in (7.14):

(7.14) (a)女儿长大，(b)就要出嫁，(c)所以父母把她看成“别人家的人”，(d)是“赔钱 货”。(From Advanced Reader of Modern Chinese, by Chou et al., 1993: 26) (a) nǚ’ér zhăngdà, (b) jiùyào chūjià, (c) suŏyĭ fùmǔ bă tā kànchéng “biérén jiā de rén”, (d) shì “péiqián huò”.

“When daughters grow up, they have to get married. This is why parents treat them as “non-family members” and “money losers”

The topic 女儿 (nǚér “daughter”) is maintained throughout the remaining three clauses to form a topic chain. Notice that the first two clauses (a)–(b) have the regular “subject + verb” construction, the third clause (c) uses a bă construction, and the fourth one (d) uses a “subject + predicate” construction.

These varied construction types do not seem to break up the flow of the topic and its chain. The English counterpart, however, behaves differently. From the English translation, we see two topic chains: one with topic 女 儿 (nǚér

“daughter”) and the other with topic 父母 (fùmŭ “parent”). It is difficult to come up with a translation that reflects the original Chinese meaning and at the same time still keeps 女儿 nǚér as the sole topic. This difference between Chinese and English provides further evidence that topic chains are constructed differently in these two languages. Hence, teachers and students of Chinese as a foreign language should be aware of the rules and constraints in constructing topic chains for coherent discourse. We may summarize the rules and constraints on the omission of topic and construction of topic chains as follows:

• Chinese topic chains are formed by topics of a number of sentences/clauses referring to the same element and for the purpose of discourse coherence;

• In written discourse, topics in a topic chain can all be omitted except for the one located either in the first or second clause of the chain;

• In spoken discourse, all topics in a topic chain can be omitted if they refer to the speaker;

• New topics are likely to be introduced in the postverbal position;

• In Chinese, topics may be chained up even through different types of sentence structures; this is not necessarily the case in Indo-European languages.

7.2.3.2 Ellipsis

Ellipsis (省略, shĕnglǜe) is another discourse device that makes discourse more coherent and less redundant. Researchers consider it one of the strongest linking devices between sentences belonging to the same text (cf. Marello 1989). The question that probably concerns students and teachers of Chinese as a foreign language most is when ellipsis can occur in discourse and when it cannot.

Consider the following advertisement:

(7.15) 《知音》(Zhīyīn), 2004: 4:60:

(a)投资 1.5 万元，请一个工人，在集贸市场租一个 5–10 平米左右的门面，

半月就可开一家“唐林香烧烤鸡鸭连锁店”。因店面形象好，(b)特别是不需 要回火可现吃，味道又美，(c)简直卖疯了！(d)当月投资，当月见效，一次 投资，长期受益。

(a) tóuzī 1.5 wàn yuán, qĭng yíge gōngrén, zài jímào shìchăng zū yíge 5–10 píngmĭ zuŏyòu de ménmiàn, bànyuè jiù kĕ kāi yìjiā “Táng Líng-xiāng shāokăo jīyā liánsuŏdiàn”. yīn diànmiàn xíngxiàng hăo, (b) tèbié shì bù xūyào huíhuŏ kĕ xiànchī, wèidao yòu mĕi, (c) jiănzhí mài fēng le! (d) dāngyuè tóuzī, dāngyuè jiànxiào, yícì tóuzī, chángqī jiànxiào.

“Invest 10,000 dollars, hire one employee, rent a 5–10 square meter place at a market, and thus open a “roasted chicken and duck chain store”. Since the store’s reputation is good, especially (because there is) no need to warm (the cooked chicken and duck) and (customers) can eat freshly cooked (chicken and duck), (that) tastes delicious, and sells like crazy! Invest for one month and receive immediate profit. One-time investment, long-time benefit.”

To save space and money, most advertisements omit all unnecessary elements as long as key information and purpose remain clear. This is the case in English as well. We see that in (7.15) all subjects are omitted regardless of whether they are part of a topic chain or whether they are coherent in the context.

Yet, native speakers seem to have little difficulty understanding who “invests,

hires, and rents”, who “warms chicken and duck”, who “tastes” and who “sells”

because it is clear from the discourse itself — its content and style. In other words, clarity is the key for ellipsis especially with informal discourse; any element can be omitted as long as it is clear to the reader/listener from the context. Let us look at another short dialogue:

(7.16) Cháguăn “Tea House” by Lăo Shĕ, p. 16 甲: 谭嗣同是谁？

Tán Sì-tóng shì shéi?

A: “Who is Táng Sì-tóng?”

乙: 好像听说过！反正犯了大罪，要不怎么会问斩呢？

hăoxiàng tīngshuō guò! fănzhèng fànle dàzuì, yàobù zĕnme huì wèn zhăn ne?

B: “(I) might have heard (the name) before. (He) must have committed a big crime, otherwise how could (he) be sentenced to death?”

The omitted entities in (7.16B) are translated into English in parentheses.

Notice that those omitted entities can either be a noun or pronoun, subject or object, which is clearly not the case in English where the presence of subject and object, noun and pronoun, is much less optional. This seems to suggest that clarity is again the key governing omission in the oral discourse. From the context of the dialogue, it is clear that the subject of “might have heard” is the speaker “I” and the object of “have heard” is the name of Táng Sì-tóng. As far as the subject of

“have committed a big crime” is concerned, the discourse shows that it can be no one but Táng Sì-tóng, so it is omitted too. English, on the other hand, can omit the subjects “I” and “he”, but not the object “the name” and the subject “he” in the interrogative sentence, even though they are clear to the speaker and listener in this conversation. This suggests that English is more rigid in ellipsis (cf. Asher 1993 and Kehler 2002, for detailed discussion on English ellipsis) than Chinese is.

Nonethless, notice that both examples given above are informal/oral texts. Is ellipsis so frequently used in Chinese written/formal discourse as in oral/informal discourse? Let us examine an example from somewhat more formal and written text:

(7.17) Mòzĭ by Chen Wei, p. 118

比如美女，住在家里不出去，人们争着追求她；但如果她行走着自我兜售，

那就没有谁娶她了。

bĭrú mĕinǚ, zhù zài jiālĭ bù chū qù, rénmen zhēngzhe zhuīqiú tā; dàn rúguŏ tā xíngzŏu zhe zìwŏ dōushòu, nà jiù méiyŏu shéi qǔ tā le.

“Taking a beautiful girl as an example, (if she) stays home and does not go out, men will pursue her. However, if she walks outside selling herself, then nobody will marry her.”

In (7.17), ellipsis of a subject noun phrase occurs only once when the subject

“a beautiful girl” is mentioned in the immediately preceding phrase. Unlike prounouns in (7.15)–(7.16), none of the other pronouns (e.g. tā “she/her”) in (7.17) are omitted even though they could be if they were in an oral discourse. This seems to suggest that discourse type affects the use of ellipsis. Thus, we may summarize ellipsis in Chinese as follows: (1) In oral discourse, any noun phrases or pronouns may be omitted as long as they are conceptually clear to listeners;

and (2) in written/formal discourse, pronouns in subject position are more likely to be omitted than those in object position. In other words, when teaching ellipsis, teachers and students should be aware that ellipsis may be used differently depending on the type of discourse. Conversational discourse, or rather spoken/informal discourse, may use it as much as possible, whereas written discourse or formal discourse, which lacks other linguistic cues such as intonation, body language, or visual aids, must use ellipsis more judiciously to achieve ultimate clarity.

7.2.3.3 Substitution

Substitution (替代, tìdài) refers to the situation when full nouns, phrases, or sentences are substituted with pronouns, demonstratives, or adverbial phrases of time, place, and manner, such as those categorized below:

Pronouns: 她 tā “she”, 他 tā “he”, 它 tā “it”

它们/他们/她们 tāmen “they”

Demonstratives: 这zhè/zhèi “this”, 那 nà “that”

Adverbial phrases: 这样zhèyàng “this way”, 这么 zhème “so, this way”

这儿zhèr “here”, 那儿 nàr “there”

这会儿 zhè huĭr “now, at this moment”

那会儿 nà huĭr “then, at that time”

Like ellipsis, substitution is often used to avoid repetition and redundancy in discourse for ultimate coherence (cf. Hobbs 1979). This is probably why some researchers do not make any distinction between the two. Among the rich body of English literature on substitution and ellipsis, most focus on pronoun reference and coreference using formal linguistic theories. Some researchers (e.g. Givón 1990) also discuss substitution from a discourse and cognitive point of view, but little research has been done regarding Chinese substitution and its uniqueness compared with other languages when teaching Chinese as a foreign language.

Hence, the following discussion is based on our preliminary research on this subject.

For students of Chinese as a foreign language, Chinese referential pronouns are relatively easy to acquire because, except for 它 tā “it”, they behave more or less the same as their counterparts in other languages, such as English. Often, teachers and students mistreat Chinese tā (它) as English it without realizing that

the latter has a much broader function than the former. Consider the following discourse:

(7.18) Rowling: Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone, p. 7

The Dursleys had everything they wanted, but they also had a secret, and their greatest fear was that somebody would discover it. They did not think they could bear it if anyone found out about the Potters.

“德斯雷一家想得到的东西都得到了，不过他们也有一个秘密，十分害怕别 人发现这个秘密。他们觉得［他们］无法忍受任何人发现了哈里雷特一家 这件事。”

Désīléi yijiā xiăng dédào de dōngxi dōu dédào le, búguò tāmen yĕ yŏu yíge mìmi, shífēn hàipà biérén fāxiàn zhèige mìmi. tāmen juéde [tāmen] wúfă rĕnshòu rènhé rén fāxiàn Hālĭléitè yìjiā zhèijiàn shì.

“It” was used twice in the discourse given above. The first one refers to

“secret” in the immediately preceding clause, and the second one refers to the event stated right after it, namely “anyone found out about the Potters.” When translating this paragraph into Chinese, we find that both its may not be translated into Chinese tā. Chinese either clearly states its reference as in the case of the first it or does not use a referential pronoun at all as in the case of the second it. This difference between Chinese and English has created a lot of difficulty for students regarding when and when not to use substitution. Influenced by their native language, Chinese students of native English often overuse Chinese 它 tā in discourse. This makes it necessary for teachers to explain tā’s discourse function and its difference from English it at least in three different ways:

• Chinese does not have the referential pronoun equivalent to the so-called English dummy it;

• Chinese 它 tā is rarely used in the object position; and

• Unlike English it, Chinese, especially in written discourse, does not use 它 tā, especially in the object position, to refer to weather or event/ situation mentioned in a previous discourse.

When translating English it, Chinese often use definite article or demonstrative zhè “this” or nà “that” along with a noun just mentioned in the preceding discourse, as illustrated in (7.18). Let us look at another example:

(7.19) Rowling: Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone, p. 8

[It was on the corner of the street that he noticed the first sign of something peculiar — a cat reading a map. For a second, Mr Dursley didn’t realize what he had seen — then he jerked his head around to look again. There was a tabby cat standing on the corner of Privet Drive, but there wasn’t a map in sight.] What could he have been thinking of? It must have been a trick of the light. Mr Dursley blinked and stared at the cat. It stared back.

他当时在想什么呢？那可能是光耍的花招。德斯雷先生眨了眨眼睛，盯着 看那只猫。（它？）猫也盯着看他。

tā dāngshí zài xiăng shénme ne? nà kĕnéng shì guāng shuă de huāzhāo. Désīléi xiānsheng zhă le zhă yănjīng, dīngzhe kàn nàzhī māo. (tā?) māo yĕ dīngzhe kàn

tā dāngshí zài xiăng shénme ne? nà kĕnéng shì guāng shuă de huāzhāo. Désīléi xiānsheng zhă le zhă yănjīng, dīngzhe kàn nàzhī māo. (tā?) māo yĕ dīngzhe kàn