an
Ill

mm 5; .- ;. llIHUIIHfl/HfllfilfllWilli!!!”"fulfill/l

I“<fY 1 31231 193093

$ , . . u“ '6 - -i_ N
. 0‘ ' ‘ . .: ...

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled
The Communicative Function of Word Order in Finnish
Simple Clauses with Two-Place Predicates

presented by
Riitta Valimaa Blum

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Masters Linguistics

degree in

 

 

44 b 9/?

Major professor

Date May 12, 1981

 

0—7639

OVERDUE FINES:
25¢ per day W “H
‘ .4 (1/! M}; s geranium ugmv MATERylLS:

\.\_ Place inbookretumtonmove
“ A “"55"” ‘- charge from circulation records

 

 

 

© 1981

RI ITTA VALIMAA BLUM

All Rights Reserved

ii

THE COMMUNICATIVE FUNCTION OF WORD ORDER
IN FINNISH SIMPLE CLAUSES WITH
TWO-PLACE PREDICATES

By

Riitta Valimaa Blum

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Linguistics and Oriental and
African Languages

1981

ABSTRACT
THE COMMUNICATIVE FUNCTION OF WORD ORDER

IN FINNISH SIMPLE CLAUSES WITH
TWO-PLACE PREDICATES

BY

Riitta Valimaa Blum

Word order in simple clauses with two-place predicates
has a communicatively functional role in Finnish: it serves
to distinguish between the topic and the comment, which
reflect clause internal relations. These notions are
connected to the consituation so that the t0pic has to be
thematic and the comment rhematic. Among the six logically
possible alternants of these clauses, which are all used in
the language, we can distinguish two different groupings
based on the choice of the tOpiC and the comment. These two
groups share the same three communicative patterns. The
choice of a particular arrangement is influenced by the
speaker's intentions, the sememic level, and purely pragmatic
matters. Only first instance utterances are examined. The
basic framework is stratificational (as in David G. Lockwood:
Introduction to Stratificational Linguistics), and the text-

linguistic notions come from Firbas and Dane§.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my advisory committee,Chairman
David G. Lockwood and professors Ruth M. Brend, and Seok C.
Song for their valuable comments during the preparation of
this thesis. Especially I wish to thank Professor Lockwood,
who read several early drafts, and pointed out many flaws
both in the content and the form. I greatly appreciate his
comments which considerably improved my own understanding.
I also would like to thank Professor Barbara Abbott for
helpful discussions, and my fellow-student Michael Eric
Bennett for his aid in the planning, and for the drawing

of the diagrams in the last chapter.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES .

I.
II.

III.

IV.

INTRODUCTION
DISCUSSION OF THE FINNISH WORD ORDER

Syntax Versus Communication .
Existential Clauses

Species . .

Naming and Classifying Functions
The Definiteness Dichotomy

TEXTLINGUISTIC NOTIONS

Language and Communication .
Linguistic Levels and Their Functions
Theme and Rheme . .

How Communicative Dynamism Works

Two Sides in Theme/Rheme

ANALYSIS OF SOME DATA IN TERMS OF THEME/RHEME

AND TOPIC/COMMENT .

Arrangement and Stress Pattern
Existential Clauses

Transitive Clauses
Intransitive Clauses
Introductory Utterances

CATALYSIS .
NOTES .
REFERENCES
APPENDIX

iv

I.
II.

Semotactics

Lexotactics

LIST OF FIGURES

77
78

EILALLE JA LEEVILLE,
JA MARKUKSELLE

vi

INTRODUCTION

My aim in this study is to examine which factors
determine and influence the choice of word order in Finnish
simple clauses with two-place predicates. These clauses
have six logically possible different arrangements, and all
of these are used in the language. I hOpe to show that the
major function of word order is communicative (syntactic
functions being expressed by suffixes) -- to signal the
choice between "what I am talking about," the topic, and
"what I am saying about it," the comment. There exists some
indication that the topic is always a carrier of lower degrees
of communicative dynamism (CD), i.e., it is thematic, and the
comment is always rhematic, a carrier of higher degrees of CD.

We can distinguish among the six different arrange-
ments two separate groupings based on the choice of the tOpic
and the comment. There are two alternatives to choose from:
the topic can be either the subject or the verb complement,
and the comment is the other of these two, the verb comple-
ment or the subject, respectively. I will consider each
variant with one (the unmarked, when necessary, with two)
stress pattern(s). It appears that the loud stress indicates
the rheme, the highest degree of CD, but in the unmarked

utterances there is no loud stress; in these cases all the

clause elements receive equal prominence while one of them
still is the rheme.

Whether a certain lexical item is the t0pic or the
comment, and thus also thematic or rhematic, depends on the
speaker's intentions and the whole consituation (= context
and situation). But also semantic factors operate so that
some particular semantic components are inherently thematic
or rhematic, and thus also inherently render the lexical items
involved the topic or the comment. Additionally, certain
purely pragmatic factors influence the choice between the
topic and the comment so that, e.g., a pragmatically
indefinite subject can only function as the comment.

We can superimpose on the above relations three of
the principles that Firbas (1964) has prOposed to account
for word order in all languages. The three are: (l) the
principle of the basic distribution of CD, which would
cover the speaker's intentions and part of the contextual
dependence; (2) the semantic word order principle which
would include the semantic features determining the themati-
city/rhematicity of the items; (3) the emotive word order
principle, also covering the speaker's intentions and part
of the contextual dependence to generate emotionally loaded,
marked, utterances.

I will begin by discussing some views of Finnish word
order, and related notions. It is in this connection that
I will divide the six possible arrangements into two types.

Next I will examine some textlinguistic notions by Danes and

Firbas, members of the Prague School. The theoretical
framework used here is the stratificational model as outlined
by Lockwood (1972). This model is compatible with the basic
framework of the above two Czech linguists. Finally, I will
apply the textlinguistic notions discussed to some Finnish
data: a few existential, transitive and intransitive clauses,
and a couple of so-called introductory utterances. In the
last chapter I will provide a catalysis using the networks

of stratificational theory.

II. DISCUSSION OF THE FINNISH WORD ORDER

Syntax Versus Communication

 

Hakulinen (1964, 401) compares word order in Danish
and Finnish and concludes that its development has led to a
more economical result in Danish than in Finnish. Danish
marks syntactic functions by arrangement while Finnish marks
them by case suffixes. In spite of this difference, both
languages have the same unmarked order both in declaratives
(SVO) and interrogatives (VSO), and from this Hakulinen
infers that in Finnish there is in these instances a tauto-
logical emphasis on already expressed syntactic facts. He
omits at this point the second unmarked arrangement in Finnish,
OVS. Also, he only considers the V50? interrogative as
unmarked while the V08? appears to me to be equally unmarked
(e.gq Onko siella kahvia? -- "is there coffee?").

When Hakulinen calls this "overlap" of word order and
case markings tautological, his assumption must be that the
arrangement has to serve primarily syntactic purposes. But
we could also view the question differently. Maybe word
order in Finnish is reserved for ends other than syntactic.
To me it appears to have a clear communicative function, and
not a syntactic one, not even in the unmarked cases. If

the arrangement in Finnish is seen as duplicating already

established syntactic notions, why would it do it only in
the unmarked arrangements and not in the marked ones? In
Danish, word order also expresses syntactic functions in
the marked variants. Maybe Finnish is not as uneconomical
as Hakulinen suggests here.

In fact, he himself in his next paragraph refers to
other aspects that word order expresses. He gives the

following set of sentences:

 

la. Juho ly3 Heikkia. Juho is hitting Heikki.
JuhoIhits Heikki

b. Juho Heikkia ly3. It is Juho who is hitting
Heikki.

c. Heikkia Juho ly3. It is Heikki whom Juho is
hitting.

d. Heikkia 1y8 Juho. It is by Juho that Heikki
is being E1t.

e. L28 Juho Heikkia. Juho is indeed hitting
Heikki.

f LXB Heikkia Juho. Heikki is indeed being hit

' by Juho.

The underlining indicates the loudest stress in the clause.
The first one (1a) is unmarked and there the stress falls
evenly on each word. Hakulinen notes that all these sentences
express essentially the same basic idea -- the hitting of
Heikki by Juho -- but in different variants focuses and
emphases of secondary importance have been added.

In examining what the differences of arrangement
express in general (1968, 403), he states that it is primarily

the distinction between the psychological subject and the

psychological predicate. These notions he defines as follows:
the former is something about which something is being said,
and the latter is that which is being said about the psycho-
logical subject. The subject, he goes on, is relatively

well known or its familiarity is presupposed; the predicate,
on the other hand, regularly expresses something new and more
interesting, and thus it has a more prominent position than
the psychological subject.

For example, Hakulinen illustrates, in sentence(lb),
what is presupposed, what is the psychological subject, is
the hitting of Heikki, while the psychological predicate,
what is being said about the subject, is that it was done by
Juho, and no-one else. Thus, he says, by placing the
psychological predicate at the beginning (and emphasizing it
by stress) we bring in new information indicating who the
actor is while the action and goal are already known.

Another example that Hakulinen gives, is that in (1d)
(Heikkig lyS guhg) we have, according to him, the verb hit
as the psychological subject, and the psychological predicate
has two parts -- the initial object and the final subject.

He gives as the presupposition that (Heikki is being hit by
Juho and) "the others by someone else." Thus he assumes
there to be a double contrasthere, which is possible if the
two stresses are of equal strength. This sentence to me,
however, suggests also another division. If the stress on
the first item is somewhat weaker than that on the last item,

then the fact that Heikki is being hit by someone is

presupposed, and what is new is the actor. Thus the psycho-
logical subject would be the object and the verb, and the
psychological predicate the grammatical subject. I will
adopt the view I prOpose here in my subsequent discussion of
this word order variant, since I exclude from consideration
cases with double contrast as somewhat particular instances.
On the same grounds I would consider also (If) with one loud
stress only (Lyé Heikkia Juho). In this latter example,

Hakulinen implies a double contrast as he did in (1d).

Existential Clauses

 

As was mentioned above, Finnish has two unmarked word
orders. These are found in many types of clause but they
are characteristic of so-called existential clauses, where
they express species, which essentially refers to the
definiteness/indefiniteness of the subject. Siro (1964, 49)
defines these clauses as those intransitive clauses which
have the following members: subject, quasipredicate (with
its stem), and a certain type of intransitive verb, also
called the existential verb. These verbs express some kind
of existence (also coming into or ceasing to be in existence),
or movement.

A quasipredicate is a locative case suffix, preposi-
tion or postposition which relates its head to another,
specific member in the clause (Siro, 1964, 27). There is a

difference between transitive and intransitive clauses: in

intransitive clauses the quasipredicate refers to the
subject, and in transitive to the object (Siro, 1964, 28).
The following example illustrates how the quasipredicate (-lle)

relates its stem and the subject:

2. Juna saapui asemalle. The train arrived at the
train arrived stat1on- station.

to (allative)

The expression asemalle ”to the station” is not complete
alone, but it is with its complement, the train; they have a
character of nexus. And what is essential to the existential
clauses, according to Siro, is that there the emphasis has
been transferred from the predicate to the quasipredicate.
An additional fact about the existential clauses is that
they alone take partitive subjects, along with the usual
nominative ones.1
Ikola defines the same type of clause in connection
with his discussion of the partitive subject. Thus: the
existential clause in the first place expresses the existence
of the referent of the subject, even though the predicate at
the same time may express something about this referent's
movement, position, or other state. The verbs which can occur
as the predicate in these clauses have the meaning of existence
(in general, or existence in some place or state), coming
into existence, ceasing to exist, movement or change into
another state. The referent of the subject is generally
not expressed as functioning actively, and when the subject

is in the plural, the action is not thought of as distributive,

performed separately by each individual, but as a collective
action (Ikola, 1964, 31).
An example of this collective versus individual
action is the following (Ikola, 1964, 30):
3a. Omenapuita kasvaa puutarhassa.
appletrees grow garden-in (inessive)
In the garden there grow appletrees.

3b. *Omenapuita kasvaa hitaasti puutarhassa.
slowly

In the garden there grow slowly appletrees.

In the former (3a) the referent of the subject is being
thought of as a mass or group, and the growing is understood
as a collective event. However, in (3b) the adverbial
brings into the foreground the separate, individual growing
of each tree, and the sentence is unacceptable.

One more definition -- Hakulinen specifies existential
clauses as follows: the intransitive verb expresses existence,
coming into or ceasing to be in existence; these clauses
have locative adverbials which express who has something or
where it is; to whom or to where something comes; from whom
or from where something disappears; they also have nominal
subjects, often having indefinite species (though sometimes
also definite species) (1964, 458). Penttila has listed
close to three hundred existential verbs, which list, however,
is far from being exhaustive (Ikola, 1964, 23-25). The

following items exemplify Finnish existential clauses:

10
4a. Laineilla ajelehtii lastu.
waves-on drifts chip
0n the waves there drifts a wooden chip.

4b. Mummo istuu verannalla.
grandma sits verandah-on

Grandma is sitting on the verandah.

"I

H . . 0 H
c. Karhu komp11 pesaansa.
bear crawls den-into-its

The bear crawls into its den.

d. Kattilassa poreilee vettfi.
kettle-in simmers water

In the kettle there simmers water.

Species

The term species comes originally from the Swedish
linguist Adolf Noreen, who distinguished three categories
of species: definite, indefinite, and generic (Ikola, 1964,
13). These notions have been further develOped to apply
to Finnish. Siro (1964, 51) has specified two categories of
definite and indefinite species in Finnish: the notive and
the quantitative. The notive species is expessed by word
order so that in existential clauses the subject is either
at the beginning or at the end. If it is at the beginning,
the subject has a known referent and its species is definite.
If the subject is at the end, its referent is unknown, and
the species is indefinite. Knownness is to be understood
here in terms of the discourse, rather than in any absolute

sense.

11

The quantitative species is expressed by the case
system: the nominative and the partitive. If the subject
is in the nominative case, its species is definite and it
refers to a definite, delimited set or amount. In the
partitive case the species is indefinite and the subject's
referent is an undetermined, unspecified set or amount.
The following table illustrates these two kinds of species

in the existential clauses:

 

Notive Quantitative

 

Def. Indef. Def. Indef.
Initial Final Nom. Part.

 

 

 

S. Ukko on tuvassa X X
man- is cottage-in
nom.
The old man is in
the cottage.

6. Tuvassa on ukko. ' X X
There is an old
man in the cottage.

7. Ruokaa on pBydalla. X X
food- is table-on
part.
There is food on
the table.

8. P3yd5113 on ruokaa. X X
On the table there
is food.

 

 

 

 

Siro suggests that stress may alter these relations
when it comes to the notive species. Thus, for example in

sentence (5) if we place a loud stress on the first word,

5b. Ukko on tuvassa.

12

we should, according to Siro, have an indefinite notive
species in the subject. Thus (5b) and (6) would have the
same species of the subject. Siro concludes that since the
subjects have the same notive species and the clauses have
the same psychological predicate (ukko) and subject, the
notive species and the psychological subject/predicate
describe the same thing, and they are expressed by stress,
and not word order (1964, 51). The definition he considers
for the psychological subject is that it is familiar,
mentioned earlier, and the psychological predicate is then
related/connected to it. It appears to me also that the
notive species and the psychological subject/predicate are
closely related notions, but I would not agree that they are
expressed by stress alone.

There is one important difference between (Sb) and
(6) which Siro does not discuss. We have propositional
presuppositions attached to (5b) -- we already know that
there is someone in the cottage while in (6) the presupposi«
tions are only existential. Also, and more importantly,

(5b) is a so-called second instance utterance (Bolinger 1952,

 

Firbas 1962): an utterance which is used rather in "a
metalinguistic communication," e.g., to set someone right

who is hard of hearing, and missed some points in the first
utterance of the sentence, and thus "the contextual dependence
of such a sentence is certainly of a very particular kind"
(Firbas, 1962, 146). Any sentence can become a second

instance utterance, where any sentence element can be

13

emphasized so as to bring it into prominence as the carrier
of the new information, in the metalinguistic sense.
However, we must distinguish the second instance utterances

from the first instance utterances which are those used for

 

"true" communication.

It is because of this difference in the purposes of
communication that I do not wish to apply the terms notive
species and psychological subject/predicate to both kinds of
utterances on an equal footing. In the second instance, as
was mentioned above, any element can be emphasized, while
this is not true of the first instance. It is for this
reason that I am not convinced that the two notions are
expressed by stress and not word order.

My aim is to examine only first instance utterances
and therefore utterances like (5b) are excluded from
consideration. I cannot of course discuss all first
instance utterances which would be possible within my
scope, but I would like to exclude the second instance

utterances .

Naming and Classifying Functions

 

Siro (1964, 52) discusses another way to describe
the subject of an unmarked existential clause. In the example

ukko on tuvassa (5) the initial subject refers to a known

 

entity about which something is being said. In this case

the noun has a namingfunction. In tuvassa on ukko (6) the

 

 

14

subject noun classifies a certain entity belonging to the

 

class of old men: in the cottage there is an entity belonging
to the class of old men. This, as Siro points out, is much
the same as the above species description, but we have now
attached something to a common noun or appellative. Thus
appellatives have two functions: they either name or
classify.

Then Siro contrasts appellatives with proper nouns
which inherently name some specific entity. Because of this
inherent character, they generally appear at the beginning of
an unmarked existential clause. If they occur after the
predicate they have the tendency to lose their proper noun
nature and acquire an air of classification. The following
example (from Siro, 1964, 52) shows an instance of this --
the final proper nouns appear to have a classificatory role:
9. Aideilla oli lapset mukanaan.

mothers had children with-them
The mothers had their children with them.

Azlla oli Petri, lelg oli Maija ja Terhi.
A had Petri B had Maija and Terhi

A had Petri, B had Maija and Terhi.

Thus Siro suggests that subject nouns can have both naming
and classifying functions which in the existential clauses
are connected with the word order: at the beginning they
name and at the end they classify.

It appears that the psychological subject/predicate,

the motive species, and the different functions of noun all

15

work together. Maybe they'reflect different aspects of the
same thing. Maybe they cooperate in expressing the different
degrees and kinds of information of the clauses. The
information could be new or old (in a relative sense) as

the notive species suggests, and as part of the definition

of the psychological predicate suggests. The new information
could also be that which is being said about the psychologi-
cal subject, which would be the given information. In fact
Enkvist (1975, 79) has suggested that the notive species
could be considered as part of the text strategy, since it
expresses given or new information. And this in fact is

what I would like to propose here -- not only that the notive
species but also the psychological subject/predicate and

the naming and classifying functions are different faces of
the communicative structure of the language which is
expressed by word order.

In the examples to follow we will see that the notive
species influences the word order, not only in the unmarked
variants but also in the marked ones: in the different
alternants the species remains the same and since it remains
the same, it probably has to do with the possibilities of
arrangement. And the psychological subject/predicate function
in a parallel fashion; the naming/classifying functions are

closely related to both of these notions.

16

The Definiteness Dichotomy

 

We can look at some Finnish examples now to see more
clearly how the arrangement works. The following examples

illustrate the two unmarked variants of the existential

clauses:

lOAa. Kissa nukkuu sangyssa. lOBa. Sangyssa nukkuu kissa.
cat sleeps bed-in bed-in sleeps cat
The cat sleeps in the bed. There sleeps a cat

in the bed.

I consider these sentences to be two distinct variants, and
not one being a variant of the other even if the absolute
semantics of the lexical items and the semantic relations
are the same. The reason is that we are speaking about
different things in them: in the first one we speak about a
definite, known cat, while in the second the cat is indefi-
nite, unknown (again, I emphasize, the knownness is
determined only in terms of the discourse). When we take
all the possible "permutations" of the two, we necessarily
get two distinct sets (columns A and B), where the (un)
knownness of the subject is retained. That is, we can only
have two additional variants of the first sentence to be
still able to say that the cat is a known cat. The same

applies to the second case:

lOAa. Kissa nukkuu sangyssa. lOBa. Sangyssa nukkuu kissa.
cat sleeps bed-in bed-in sleeps cat
The cat sleeps in the bed. There sleeps a cat

in the bed.

17

b. Sangyssg kissa nukkuu. b. Kissa sangyssa nukkuu.
t 5 1n the bed that the It's a cat that sleeps
cat sleeps. in the bed.
c. Nukkuu kissa sangyssa. c. Nukkuu sangyssa kissa.
THe cat does indeed sleep There does indeed sleep
in the bed. a cat in the bed.

As we see, we need different variants to tell the knownness
of the cat. Thus we cannot, for example, say that (lOBc) is
a variant of (lOAa) because in (lOBc) we are not speaking
about any particular, known cat. In (lOBb) we already know
that something is sleeping in the bed and we bring in as new
information contrastively that it is a cat and nothing else
that sleeps there. In (lOAb) we know that the cat sleeps
somewhere and the contrastive new information is that it is
in the bed where it sleeps.

The a-forms are unmarked, they carry only existential
presuppositions, and they bring in new information non-
contrastively. We could also say that in these forms, (Aa)
and (Ba), we are talking about the cat's sleeping, and the
sleeping of something in the bed, respectively, and what
we say about these, is carried by the final element. In
the b-forms the initial element, which corresponds to the
final element of the a-forms, is contrastednmifl1some other
alternative while the rest of the clause is presupposed. In
the c-forms, according to Hakulinen, the speaker wants to
reassure us that the action indicated by the verb is indeed
true. One could also say that they are used when the under-

lying pr0positions (Aa and Ba, respectively) have been

18

challenged, and the speaker meets this doubt or refutation
by giving an emphatic affirmation.

Thus what we have here is two underlying propositions
three times (3 x 2) and not one underlying proposition six
times (6 x 1). Another way to put it is to say that (lOAb)
and (c) on the one hand, and (lOBb) and (c) on the other, are
the marked, emotive variants of the prOpositions expressed
by the unmarked (lOAa) and (lOBa), respectively. The marked
B-variants do not have the same relation to the unmarked A-
variant as they have to the unmarked B-variant. The same
applies to the marked A-variants and the unmarked B-form.

We can regroup Hakulinen's example (1) according to

this pattern:

llAa. Juho 1y8 Heikkia. llAa. Heikkia 1y8 Juho.

J. hits H. H. is being Hlt by J.
J. is hitting H.

b. Heikkia Juho ly3. b. Juho Heikkia 1y3.
It's H. whom J. is It's J. who is hitting H.
hitting.

c. 123 Juho Heikkia. c. LXS-Heikkia Juho.
J. is indeed hitting H. H. is indeed being hit

by J.

Here we do not have species in question but rather
something else, which was also found in the existential
clauses. If we think of that part of the psychological
subject/predicate which mentions "that which I am talking
about" and "that which I say about it," or the tOpic and the

comment, respectively, as they were called in the introduction,

19

we can find that these two notions are different in the two
columns, and the difference is expressed by word order.

In the A-column we are talking about Juho and his
hitting, and in the B-column about Heikki's being hit. In
the a-forms the first word, and perhaps the second, too, is
the topic, and the last item is the comment, which at the
same time is the most informative element in the clause. In
the b-clauses the first element indicates what we are saying
about the rest, which is presupposed. The last pair (c) is
somewhat more complicated: the final item indicates what we
say about the beginning, while at the same time the initial
verb carries the emphatic affirmation, which together with
the last element contains the new information. The second
item is the topic and the least informative item.

As far as I have been able to observe, the different
word order alternants are usually considered to be variants
of one underlying proposition. In a way this is of course
true, since we only have one event sememe with the same two
participants (circumstantials). However, as we saw, we can
choose one of the partiCipants as the topic of the utterance
and the remaining participant is then the comment. And
since we have two possible options, we have two alternative
prOpositions. One example of this thinking, that all variants
are based on the same underlying form, comes from Auli
Hakulinen (in Enkvist, 1975, 79). She gives the following
pair and indicates that the latter is derived from the former

transformationally:

20

lZAa. Marssijat pysHyttith liikenteen.
demonstrators blocked traffic

The‘ demonstrators blocked the traffic.

lZBa. Marssijat liikenteen pysayttivat.
demonstrators traffic blocked

It was the demonstrators who blocked the traffic.
The 3 x 2 alternants of the above sentences are the following:

lZAa. Marssijat pysayttivat liikenteen.
The demonstrators blocked the traffic

b. Liikenteen marssijat pysayttivat.
It was the traffic that the demonstrators blocked.

 

c. Pysayttivat marssijat liikenteen.
The demonstrators did indeed block the traffic.

 

lZBa. Liikenteen pysayttivat marssijat.
The traffic was blockedTBy the demonstrators.

 

b. Marssijat liikenteen pysayttivat.
It was the demonstrators who blocked
the traffic.

 

c. Pysayttivat liikenteen marssijat.
The traffic was indeed blocked by
the demonstrators.

 

As we notice, this grouping gives the two examples
by A. Hakulinen as belonging to different sets: (Bb) does
not belong to the same column as (Aa). (Aa) and (Ba) do
not speak about the same thing -- the former says something
about the demonstrators while the latter is speaking about
the traffic. And this relation is retained throughout in
the two columns. Thus we see that (Bb) and (Aa) speak about

different things. Therefore, when A. Hakulinen says that

21

(Bb) has undergone stress assignment and verb rhematization,
I feel she is not right. In her terms I would rather say
that (Bb) has undergone rheme fronting (and stress assign-
ment) -- (Ba) became (Bb) and not (Aa) became (Bb). This

on the basis that (Aa) says something about the demonstrators
while (Bb) is speaking about the traffic.

As was mentioned earlier, the case of the subject is
either nominative or partitive. When the subject is in the
nominative plural, this form is identical with the accusa-
tive plural, and we cannot formally distinguish between
subject and object. Enkvist thinks that even with its rich
morphology Finnish in these cases has to resort to word
order (1976, 9). I, however, would consider these as cases
of ambiguity. If we look at the following sentences, I
think the word order is not of much help. In a context
they are probably understood, but the interpretation is
likely to be based on extralinguistic factors; maybe stress

facilitates it also.

l3Aa. Tyt3t nakivat pojat. 13Ba. Pojat nakivat t t3t.
The girls saw the boys. It was by the g1rls
that the boys were seen.
b. Pojat tyt3t nfikivfit. b. TytSt pojat nflkivfit.
It was the boys that t was the girls who
the girls saw. saw the boys.
c. Nakivat tyt3t pojat. c. Nakivat pojat tyt3t.
The g1rls indeed saw The Boys were indeed

the boys. seen by the girls.

22

In the next chapter I will discuss how theme and
rheme are understood by Firbas and Danes, and then I will
apply these notiOns to some Finnish data to see how they
could be used to predict the word order in these simple

clauses.

III. TEXTLINGUISTIC NOTIONS

Language and Communication

 

I take as a basic premise here that "to . . . make
communication possible is the global and basic purpose of
any language system" (Danes, 1971, 127) -- to exchange
messages, to convey information about extralinguistic
reality. This means that

all items of the language are eventually
operative -- directly or indirectly -- as means
of communication . . . the basic function of
language systems is to be available for produc-
ing utterances. Let us call this global external
function of language the utterance function.
(ibidl)

 

Thus in our linguistic analysis of any language, among
the facts to be explained is how this utterance function is
fulfilled, what is the function of the various means
employed by the language. This involves, e.g., the study of
how the language integrates the consituation into the
message, be it linguistic or non-linguistic or both. Or,
the other way around -- how the consituation influences the
organization of the message.

Different languages have different means for the
utterance function, and one language may have several means

for the same function. One of the important things here is

23

24

to distinguish between the communicative means and the
constitutive means. A way to do this is to view language
as a stratified system where the communicative level is
distinct from the semantic and the syntactic levels, which
contain the constitutive means. Another important distinc-

tion in this connection is that between sentence and utterance.

 

The term "sentence" is often used to cover both of these
functions but it is better for the sake of clarity to
distinguish between them. Sentence and utterance have been
discussed in a somewhat parallel fashion by Strawson (1967)
and Danes (1966). Although there are differences between
them, both draw the distinction between language and its
use, between a certain pattern, and its use in communication.
Language itself is more or less static while its use is
dynamic, or as Strawson puts it, "the expression itself
does not refer to anything; though it can be used, on
different occasions, to refer to innumerable things" (1967,
113).

I will thus use the terms ”sentence" and "utterance"
in the following way which captures the relevant aspects of
both of the above authors' conceptions: sentence = "a
syntactic structure having a specific lexical content and a
non-contextualized theme/rheme structure determined solely

by its lexico—syntactic structure," and utterance = "the

 

structure obtained from a sentence by superposition of a
specific communicative articulation into theme and rheme"

(Holman, 1976, 128).

25

Linguistic Levels and Their Functions

 

I view language to be a stratified system essentially
as represented in stratificational grammar (Lockwood, 1972).
Danes, in his discussion of the functional sentence perspec-
tive (FSP) identifies three levels of syntax:

1. level of the grammatical structure of sentence

2. level of the semantic structure of sentence

3. level of the organization of utterance (1966, 225)

The use of the terms sentence and utterance follows the
outline set above. Danes's model of language is thus also
stratified. However, in this discussion the term stratifica-
tional model/theory/grammar refers to that outlined by
Lockwood.

In stratificational model we have four strata of
language: phonology, morphology, lexology, and semology. The
last two largely correspond to Danes's grammatical and
semantic levels, respectively. In stratificational grammar,
the lexemic level involves, in a complete description of a
language, all the possible well-formed syntactic patterns.

If we deprive the patterns generated at this level of all

but the minimal, constitutive requirements for enabling us

to call a sequence a well—formed, non-contextualized
sentence, we have a sentence (sentence pattern) in the strict
sense as defined by Danes -- a minimal communicative unit.

In Finnish this would involve "an abstract and static

invariant structure (scheme), not a sequence of particular

26

words in a particular utterance" (Danes, 1966, 231). The
actual order is irrelevant; only the case markers for
syntactic functions count in Danes's system at this level
in a language like Finnish.

Danes's semantic structure involves the linguistically
relevant semantic content of individual lexical items and
their mutual semantic relations. The former are abstract
word categories and relations between them (e.g., living
being, quality, action, etc.) (Danes, 1966, 226). These
would correspond to the sememes or meaning components in
stratificational grammar. The semantic relations are part
of the predication structure in the stratificational model,
where we have event sememes (verbs) with their accompanying
optional and obligatory participants having various roles
(agent, patient, instrument, etc.) plus circumstantials.

The level of the organization of utterance has its

counterpart in the gnostemic stratal system of stratificational

 

theory, which is part of semology in its broadest sense.

The gnostology controls "the external compatibility of
propositions . . ." and its "basic cycle must extend all the
way to the text" (Lockwood, 1972, 166). In Danes's system
the organization of utterance "makes it possible to
understand how the semantic and the grammatical structures
function in the very act of communication, i.e., at the
moment they are called upon to convey some extra-linguistic

reality reflected by thought and are to appear in an adequate

27

kind of perspective" (Firbas, 1962, 137). Also Firbas
subscribes to the use of the three levels as pr0posed by
Danes (1964, 116-117).

Thus the level of the organization of utterance
represents the functional sentence perspective, the way a
proposition is organized into an utterance, the way the
information conveyed by the utterance is organized into a
particular communicatively applicable perspective. This
organization involves for Danes the use of (1) "non-grammatical,
but systemic means" like, e.g., word order and stress/
intonation in Finnish and Slavic languages, and (2) the use
of "some grammatical elements, which, however, do not
belong to the constitutive features of a sentence pattern
(e.g., . . . moods, tenses . . .)" (Danes, 1966, 229-230).

As Danes points out, this distinction between the
different levels highlights the fact that notions like
subject and object are units of the grammatical level
(lexology), and agent, goal, instrument, etc., are elements
of the semantic (sememic) structure.2 Units of the
organization of utterance (gnostology) are the theme and
the rheme, and also the tOpic and the comment which will be
"named” only in the next chapter.

Thus I consider gnostology to be responsible for
the use of language, for the FSP, in the stratificational
model. Gnostology organizes prOpositions into particular,

contextually appropriate perspectives, and this gives dynamic

28

variability to the language. Semology and lexology are
responsible for the constitutive manifestations of language
in addition to realizing the communicative functions. For
example, in Finnish, word order would be a non-constitutive
element and thus it can be seen as a realization of certain
gnostemes (t0pic and comment in essence, as will be seen
later) while in English for example, where word order is
constitutive, it would realize sememes (agent, patient,
goal).

Gnostology of course may use means other than word
order in its realization in Finnish, for example stress
and certain morphemes. As an example of the latter we can
consider a clitic particle "m." It has various uses and it
is attached to the first word in a clause. It is difficult
to pinpoint any specific meaning to it, but the one given
by Karttunen (1975, 236) seems to capture its pragmatic
nature: "I invite no response." Often this particle is
attached to the first word of a fairy tale.

Thus gnostology has all the linguistic levels in
its use, but of course the utterances themselves must be
compatible with semantics, syntax, and pragmatics. That
is, gnostology may organize freely only as long as it does
not produce syntactically, semantically, or pragmatically
ill-formed utterances.

For example, in Swedish, which expresses syntactic

functions by word order, like English, object initial clauses

29

are acceptable as long as the semantics of the lexical
items themselves makes it clear what is the object and

what is the subject (the example from Enkvist, 1975, 71):

14. Osten 8t rattan i gar. The cheese the rat ate
cheese ate rat yesterday yesterday.
If the object was musen —- "the mouse," we could not

use the above order. Also the scope of the adverbials
depends on their sentence position and this puts constraints
on the functioning of the gnostology. The following two
sentences thus are not communicative variants of the same

proposition:

15a. Clearly Mary had written her name there.

b. Mary had written her name there clearly.

Thus, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics impose

constraints on the functioning of the FSP.

Theme and Rheme

 

When we think of language as a means of communication,
one of the basic assumptions is that the utterances carry
information. "In harmony with the character of human
apprehension" (Firbas, 1971, 138) the information in texts
is sequenced in the linear organization of language so that
texts often open with thematic elements, i.e., elements

which "convey the facts that constitute the communicative

30

basis of the sentence . . . (which) . . . contribute least
toward the development of the discourse,” and close with
rhematic elements, i.e., elements which "contribute most
towards the development of the discourse." These two "are
usually linked up by means of transitional elements (i.e.,
the transition)" (Firbas, 1964, 112). This is called the

basic distribution of communicative dynamism (CD) (Firbas,

 

1971, 138). The following example by Firbas (1964, 112)
exhibits this basic distribution: "The situation (theme) has
become (transition) quite dangerous (rheme)."

But also in accordance with the human perceptual
abilitiesthis.can only be an idealization —- we cannot
continuously receive accumulating, new information.
Therefore in every discourse we have elements which are

contextually dependent (Firbas's term). That is, there are

 

elements in the discourse which are established as conveying
given information in the sense that they have been referred

to earlier in the discourse, or that they refer to the present
consituation, or that they are otherwise taken for granted

due to, e.g., shared experiences, basic facts of life, etc.

The contextually independent (also from Firbas) items are

 

those which bring in new information, "cumulative to or
contrastive with what has preceded" (Halliday, 1967, 211).

I have used the words item and element above and said
that they convey different degrees of information, but

this, of course, is only a way of speaking. In fact, no

31

lexical item as such, in isolation, conveys any information,
except in relation to the rest of the text and the consitua-
tion. This has to be kept in mind all through this
discussion, but I go on speaking of items doing this and
that because items are more concrete than relations.
According to stratificational theory there are no items in
language, only relations. However, since I am discussing
utterances, i.e.,g language in use, and not sentences, it

is legitimate even within this theory to speak of items.

The known information is thus established as that
which is contextually dependent -- its familiarity is
presupposed. The new information is contextually independent.
Halliday and Hasan define these notions in a similar
way: "what the speaker is treating as information that is
recoverable to the hearer (given) and what he is treating
as non-recoverable (new)" (1976, 27). The former I call,
following Firbas, the Ehemg, and the latter the rhemg.

But these are not all-inclusive definitions. If
we want to analyze complete texts, including introductory
utterances which typically contain no contextually dependent
material, we have to relativize the notion of information
(and contextual (in)dependence), and speak of it only in
terms of the unit under analysis. Of course, even now we
don't understand by new information only factually new
information but "the newness may lie in the speech function,
or it may be a matter of contrast with what has been said

before or what might be expected" (Halliday, 1967, 206).

32

Thus Firbas notes that the rheme may contain elements
which are already established contextually, but which
function as rheme due to the particular communicative pur-
poses of the utterance. He calls this "the narrow scene,
i.e., . . . the very purpose of the communication" (1971,
136), i.e., the purpose of that utterance in that particular
consituation.

But how do we analyze the initial utterances in a
discourse which typically contain only contextually
independent items? Would we say that these utterances are
homogeneous in their information content? 'Firbas's answer
is n3. Let us look at one example:

16. Oli kerran prinsessa. Once upon a time there
was once princess was a pr1ncess.

An utterance like this, according to the given
definition would have no theme. But, as Firbas (1966)
suggests, in examining utterances like the one above
carefully, it becomes obvious that the elements in relation
to each other are not homogeneous in their information
content but heterogeneous. The first item 911, "was," is
less informative than the following one, kerran, ”once,"

while the last item, prinsessa, is the most informative

 

element in the clause. (This utterance is an example of
how the purpose of communication renders a usually highly

emotive, contextualized word order into an unmarked utterance:

 

33

the sentence above is uttered with the neutral stress
pattern which is used in non-contextualized utterances,
and it carries no propositional presuppositions.)

Thus even in an utterance which contains only
contextually independent elements we can see the gradual
increase of informative content. It is to cover also
‘these types of utterance that Firbas (1966, 1971) developed

the notion of communicative dynamism which has already been

 

referred to. This Firbas specifies as follows:

By CD I understand a property of communication,

displayed in the course of the development of the

information to be conveyed, and consisting in
advancing this develOpment. By the degree or

amount of CD carried by a linguistic element, I

understand the relative extent to which the

element contributes to the development of the
communication, to which, as it were, it "pushes

the communication forward" (1971, 135-136).

This notion enables us to analyze all utterances in terms
of theme and rheme.

All those items that carry lower degrees of CD are
thematic while the carriers of higher degrees of rhematic --
this in relation to other elements in the same utterance
(unit) and their semantic content and mutual semantic
relations, and consituation. Thus we potentially have
several thematic and several rhematic items. To make the

discussion more fluent I will call theme that which Firbas

calls the theme prOper, i.e., the carrier of the lowest

 

degree of CD, and rheme the rheme proper (1971, 142), the

 

34

element with the highest degree of CD. What remains in

between Firbas calls transition. However, the three-word

 

utterances that I am discussing'h'ere can be handled with
theme/rheme alone without the notion of transition since we
can probably identify all the elements easily as belonging
either to the theme or the rheme; the transition is
negligible in these short clauses.

Firbas emphasizes the fact that "the degrees (amounts)
of CD do not constitute multiples of some basic unit or
quantity of information" but, as explicated above, "they
are to be understood in terms of the mutual relations of
the elements in regard to CD within a distributional field"
(1971, 141). A distributional field is naturally the
whole discourse/text but it can be subdivided into lower
level fields like chapter, sentence, clause. Thus the
clause, which I am concentrating on here, is only one among
the many possible distributional fields of CD.

Firbas (1964) has suggested that a handful of
principles accounts for word order in all languages. Four
of them are:

l. grammatical word order principle
2. semantic word order principle.
3. emotive word order principle

4. word order principle of basic distribution of CD

35

The last one, as can be inferred from the above
discussion, tends to place elements carrying lower degrees
of CD at the beginning and the carriers of higher degrees
of CD at the end. The grammatical principle means that a
language uses word order to express the grammatical functions,
e.g., subject and object. The emotive principle renders
word orders with emotive overtones as opposed to the unmarked
arrangements. The semantic principle influences that part
of the utterance which conveys new information so that the
elements with particular semantic properties are naturally
in certain positionsimirelation to the rest of the clause.
For example actionanulgoal at the syntactic level have a
natural order -- object following the predicate -- if both
are contextually independent.

None of these principles functions alone in a
language, but they are operative together. However, one is
normally the primary organizing principle, another the
secondary, etc. It appears to me that the primary organizing
principles in Finnish are the principle of the basic
distribution of CD and the emotive one. Also the semantic
principle is involved, but unlike the situationijiEnglish,

the grammatical principle has very little, if any application.

How Communicative Dynamism Works

 

To understand how the system of CD works let us

discuss the way Firbas (1971) explains it. First, all

36

linguistic elements that convey some meaning are capable

of carrying CD. The items that are contextually dependent
carry the lowest amounts of CD and they have this function
irrespective of their sentential position. When we look at
the contextually independent elements we have two factors
in play in determining the degrees of CD for each one: the
semantic structure and the position of the elements within
the linear arrangement. The latter is not relevant here
due to the shortness of the utterances in question,but it
would, e.g., arrange direct object and indirect object in
some particular order depending on the purposes of communi-
cation.

In the operation of the semantic structure the
semantic contents of the individual lexical items and their
semantic relations work together in the act of communication.
This means that there are certain semantic facts in indivi-
dual lexical items that make these items necessarily
carriers of higher degrees of CD in relation to the rest of
the non-contextual part of the utterance. This would
exemplify the semantic word order principle. To take an
example, the object is communicatively more important than
the verb, if both are contextually independent, and thus
it would carry a higher degree of CD than the verb. The
object would thus be the rheme in the example "I have read

a fine book."

37

Another illustration that Fibras (1971) gives is
that if we have an existential verb, and the subject and
the verb are both contextually independent, the subject
carries a higher degree of CD than the verb. This is
because "communicatively speaking an unknown person or thing
appearing on the scene is found to be more important than
the fact of existence or act of appearing itself" (1971,
137).

This could be illustrated by the Finnish unmarked
existential clause, which places the unknown subject at the
end (OVS). Thus, for example, when in English and German
we would say "a girl came into the room" and "ein Madchen
kam ins Zimmer," the subject would be the rheme (note the
indefinite article), but the same in Finnish would be
"huoneeseen tuli tytt3" with the order location-verb-
subject. But, since we have two unmarked alternatives in
the Finnish existential clauses, it appears that it is not
the sememic level but the gnostemic one, which determines
the order here. I will return to this point later. The
sememic level, however, functions in Finnish in some
instances so that certain nouns, for example, cannot
Operate as, e.g., thematic subject.

Thus the three factors influencing the distribution
of the degrees of CD over the sentence elements are: (l)
context, (2) semology, and (3) the linear arrangement (this

last one is not involved here, as stated above). The

38

context will overrule the other two -- it renders everything
contextually dependent as a carrier of lower degrees of CD
regardless of their semantic content or linear position.

The other two function effectively only within the context-
ually independent parts of the distributional field. Thus,
e.g., the basic distribution of CD is manifested by the
other two giving the unmarked, non-emotive word orders.

Since CD renders contextual (in)dependence and thus
also the terms theme and rheme relative, in that even
contextually independent utterances are to be viewed as
heterogeneous in the amount of CD carried by their parts, we
have to emphasize that consequently theme is not to be
identified with given information, even though given
information is always thematic. And, on the other hand,
while not all new information is rhematic, rheme is always
contextually independent.

As was implied above, the theme does not always
precede the rheme but their order may also be the reverse.
Theme precedes the rheme in the unmarked, non-emotive clauses
where we have the basic distribution of CD; this order is
also found in introductory utterances. But occasionally
the context, and the semantic structure, may be "acting
counter to the basic distribution of CD" (Firbas, 1966, 270).
This means that the rheme would precede the theme. This

may or may not involve different word orders in general, but

39

in my examples here, whenever we have the rheme preceding
the theme, the arrangement is marked.

Danes (1967) has suggested that emotive or marked
word orders manifest a discrepancy between the order of
elements in the actual utterance and the neutral order on
any of his three levels. The unmarked arrangements at the
syntactic level in Finnish.would be SVO and_OVS; at the
sememic level they would be agent-action-goal and goal-
action-agent, and at the gnostemic level, theme-rheme (and
topic-comment). This is much what Halliday seems to have
in mind when he speaks of "the element of structure .
(being) . . . a complex of structural roles“ (1967, 215),
that is, e.g., a nominal may be a complex of actor, subject,
given, and theme. However, this discrepancy, or difference
in the bundles of various roles, depends on the particular
communicative functions. They are the effect, not the cause.

To summarize, in the basic distribution of CD the
degrees of CD go from lower degrees toward high ones as the
utterance advances. But under certain conditions of contexts
ual dependence a rheme may precede a theme rather than
follow it. Thus theme and rheme are not tied to any
sentence position but are determined, as stated above, by

context, semantics, and linearity.

40

Two Sides in Theme and Rheme

 

The founder of the Prague School, Vilem Mathesius
defined theme as "that which is known or at least obvious
in the given situation, and from which the speaker proceeds
in his discourse" (in Firbas, 1966, 268) and as "that (which)
is being spoken about in the sentence" (in Firbas, 1966,
280). Firbas himself in discussing CD took the point of
view of the bearer since he is the one whom "the information
is intended for" (1966, Z69) -- the bearer is the one who
has to decipher the utterances. The approach taken by
Mathesius also involves the speaker's side, how he organizes
the message.

Danes has developed this line of Mathesius's thought,
and he defines theme and rheme, not only as "concerning .
the sentence as a contextual unit, but its internal
structure viewed in the light of the relations between
theme and rheme" (Firbas, 1966, 280). Thus Danes defines
theme and rheme from two viewpoints. Still, he sees
variation in word order to be a function of "contextual
dependence and applicability" -- he states that even the
unmarked variants presuppose certain context or a "certain

class of contexts." His definition is as follows:

(a) theme = something one is talking about (to be
called topic)
rheme = what one says about the theme (to be

called comment)

41

(b) in terms of the consituation:
theme = that which is already given, known, etc.

rheme = new piece of information (1967, 504)

Danes notes that according to Mathesius these two
aspects, the thematic (= a) and the contextual (= b),
usually coincide and thus it is not always necessary to
differentiate between them. In the second part (b) of this
definition we can impose Firbas's view and see the theme
and the rheme in terms of CD.

Thus the speaker, in organizing his message takes
into account the whole consituation -- what has been talked
about, what hasn't yet, and what he wants to say now. Thus
he must take into account the contextual dependence and what
he himself wants to say. And it may well be that these two
coincide so that theme is that which is being talked about
and at the same time it carries the lower degrees of CD.
Similarly, what the speaker says about the theme may well
carry higher degrees of CD, and thus be rhematic. And this
is in fact, what, as I hope to show, happens in the clauses
to be discussed.

Halliday (1967) has defined theme as "what is being
talked about, the point of departure for the clause as a
message” and "what I am talking about (or "what I am talking
about now")"(212). But for him, theme is tied to the clause
initial position, and therefore his view is not applicable

here as such.

42

The notion of "basis" as developed by Benes, is much
the same: "the opening element of the sentence (that) links
up the utterance with the context and the situation,
selecting from several possible connections one that
becomes the starting point, from which the entire further
utterance unfolds and in regard to which it is orientated"
(in Firbas, 1966, 276). The "basis" is almost the same as
"what I am talking about" but it is also tied to the clause
initial position.

We can recognize here that this "double" definition
of theme and rheme is much the same as Hakulinen's, and
others', definitions of the psychological subject and
predicate.

What I will propose here is that the primary organiz-
ing principle is to distinguish between "what I am talking
about now" and "what I am saying about it." These are
related to the consituation and the sememic level, so that
the former is always thematic and the latter always rhematic,
though they need not be theme proper and rheme proper,
respectively.

As we remember, the notive species is defined in
terms of contextual dependence and thus when the subject is
thematic, it is (in the unmarked cases) in the initial
position and when rhematic, in the final position. It
appears to me that the semantic principle operates here,
too, so that certain nouns are inherently indefinite, or

definite, and thus they have indefinite or definite notive

43

species inherently, respectively. To give an example we

can look at the following pair:

17a. Maassa on routa. The ground is frozen.
ground- is frost
in
b.*Routa on maassa. The frost is in the ground.

frost is ground-in

Here the rhematicity of the subject is determined by
the semological properties of the noun, i.e., the sememic
level, and thus also the semantic word order principle. The
second alternant is unacceptable because it implies that
there is a specific, definite frost that is in the ground.
Examples like this provide some indication that the comment
has to be rhematic, because whenever a lexical item is
inherently rhematic, it can be only the comment, and when an
item is inherently thematic, it cannot always be the comment.

The exclusive rhematicity of the subject can also be
a result of purely pragmatic factors as in the following
example (18a comes from Heinamaki (1976) who also suggests
that Finnish appears to have two unmarked arrangements as
far as unmarked or "dominant (word) order (is taken) to
mean something like 'neutral', 'non-emphasized'," and which
variants can answer the question "what happened?" (p. 96).).
18a. Minua puri kaarme. I was bitten by a snake.

me bit snake

18b.*KH§rme puri minua.

44

The second alternant (18b) is not possible with the
neutral, unmarked stress pattern. If it was, it would
imply that there is only one snake that could have done it
and we know exactly "who" this snake is. If it was indeed
a definite snake, e.g., a pet, we would specify the subject
by a demonstrative or like, (tuo kaarme puri minua -- "that
snake bit me") or use its name. However, in comparing
(18a) and (18b), the former is the unmarked utterance which
carries only existential presuppositions. Thus the sememes
of the lexical items and the context may render words
exclusively thematic or rhematic, context not only in
linguistic terms, but as a pragmatic fact of life, e.g., we
don't know the snakes individually,

Thus, we can conclude at this point that the
thematicity and rhematicity of the lexical items (thus also
whether they are the topic or the comment) is a result of
the interaction between the speaker's intentions (word order
principle of the basic distribution of CD, and of emotiveness),
sememic level (the semantic word order principle), and the
context (the emotive principle and the principle of the
basic distribution of CD), and these factors determine the

word order in a clause.

IV. ANALYSIS OF SOME DATA IN TERMS OF
THEME/RHEME AND TOPIC/COMMENT

Arrangement and Stress Pattern

My interest in this study is word order, but this
necessarily involves discussion of stress, too. I will
not include all possible first instance stress patterns of
each varient, but only one of each marked variant, and two
for the unmarked arrangements (one of which, however, is not
canonical but results from sememic and pragmatic facts).
As stated earlier, I will only consider clauses with at
most one contrastive stress. The stress patterns to be
discussed are those found in Hakulinen's example (la-f)
with the above reservation. These are the following:
Unmarked: I call the SVO and OVS arrangements
unmarked even though they may occur, depending on the
speaker's intentions, semantics, and pragmatics, as
marked utterances, i.e., as utterances with a marked stress
pattern as opposed to the neutral one where each word
carries approximately equal stress. The absence of under-
lining, which indicates stress, means that the variant has
a neutral stress pattern, and as such it is either acceptable
or unacceptable. These two alternants are the characteris-

tic unmarked variants of the existential clauses, but they

45

46

are also found as unmarked both in other intransitive, and
transitive clauses.

Often, however, especially in transitive clauses, the
OVS variant has a final stress, which, as implied above, is
a result of an interplay of various semantic and contextual
factors. The first item is also stressed but the stress
there is weaker than on the final element, but louder than
that of the medial word. Since the final stress is the
loudest, only it will be indicated. I will, however,
propose that the canonical stress pattern for these two
variants, SVO and OVS, is the neutral one.

Marked: In the marked arrangements the OSV and SOV
variants have the initial element stressed for contrast,
which is called here contrastive stress/emphasis. Sometimes
the contrast is only implicit but it appears that it is
always there. Also in these variants there are three
degrees of stress, but only the loudest is indicated, i.e.,
the first element is underlined. In the V80 alternant the
medial word has the medium stress, and in the V08 the final
element carries the medium stress, and the first element,
the verb, carries the loudest stress, which is the only one
indicated in these variants. Thus the following patterns

will be considered:

A. svo B. ovs (ovg)
gsv _s_ov
[so 105

47

Enkvist (1975, 75) gives examples of how different
thematic variants can have different patterns of emphasis:
19a. Kalle sbi omenan. It was Kalle who ate an apple.

KaIIe ate apple

b. Kalle 53i omenan. Kalle ate the apple (and didn't
do anyth1ng else with it).

c. Kalle 581 omenan. It was an apple that Kalle ate.

These variants (with loud stress), however, all appear to
be second instance utterances. In the following example

(also from Enkvist) not every item can carry the loud stress:

20a. Omenan Kalle $81. It was an apple that Kalle ate
appIe Kalle ate. (and not, e.g., an orange).
b. Omenan Kalle 53i. An apple Kalle ate (but some-

thing else he didn't).

c.*0menan Kalle soi.

The second alternant (20b) has a double contrast. The
third is not acceptable and the reason appears to lie in
the fact that it presents as new something which is already
presupposed, as we will see later.

In Hakulinen's 1946 edition (pp. 197-199) I found a
discussion of the expression of species in Finnish using
stress and word order. His discussion implies the same 2 x 3-
set of alternants as was pr0posed above, if we allow the
identification of indefinite with rhematic, new, and

definite with thematic, given. He uses expressions like "if

48

X is initial because it is stressed, then (e.g.) indefinite
subject is placed there and there . . .," but he never says
why some X would be initial and emphasized. However, his
comments give support to the 2 x 3 division. The notive
species conforms to the patterns proposed by him.

The unmarked arrangements could also be called non-
contrastive arrangements. This is due to the fact that they
bring in new information non-contrastively as opposed to
the OSV and SOV variants, which do have contrast on the first
item. As was implicit above, the rheme in marked cases is
always accompanied by stress. But as we saw in (20c) we
cannot place the stress just anywhere -- the arrangement
seems to reserve certain positions exclusively for either
new or given, but not both.

I would like to point out that I am studying what
word order potentially does; the relations posited here may
be changed, and expressed, by pragmatic particles, deter-
miners, and by added lexical content in general. Thus I
am studying what word order can do, and does, in the absence
of other elements expressing the same relations. I limit
myself here to three-word utterances, but we can find the
same principles operating in larger contexts, too.

I begin my discussion with existential clauses, then
look at some transitive, and intransitive clauses. I
will also examine a few unmarked utterances with marked

arrangements, i.e., introductory utterances.

49

Existential Clauses

 

I begin the discussion of existential clauses with an

earlier example and see how the notions theme/rheme and

topic/comment a la Firbas and Danes apply here.

21Aa. Ukko on tuvassa.
man is cottage-in
The old man is in
the cottage.

b. Tuvassa ukko on.
It's in the cottage
that the old man is.

c. On ukko tuvassa.
The old man ii in the
cottage.

ZlBa.

C.

Tuvassa on ukko.
cottage- is man

in
There is an old man
in the cottage.

Ukko tuvassa on.
It's an old man that
is in the cottage.

On tuvassa ukko.
There 13 an old man
in the cottage.

In the a-forms the first item is the carrier of the

lowest degree of CD, and it also names what we are talking

about. The last item brings in new information non-

contrastively, it carries the highest degree of CD, and it

also indicates what we say about the theme.

We can note again how the notive species functions

here: in Aa the subject is known, presupposed and it is at

the initial position. In Ba the subject is unknown and it

is at the end. Thus when the subject is contextually

dependent, thematic, it is at the beginning, and when it is

contextually independent, rhematic, it is at the end. Of

course, these alternants may appear as completely contextually

independent utterances but these same thematic relations

50

would still obtain, i.e., theme at the beginning, and
rheme at the end.

These same relations extend also to the location
in the sense that when we want to express the location of
the subject as new information, we place it at the end, and
when, on the other hand, the location is presupposed, and we
want to express what there is at that location, we place
the locative at the beginning. Thus in these simple clauses
we have two choices for what to talk about, and consequently
one choice is left for what to say about it.

The unmarked a-variants carry only existential
presuppositions, while in all the other alternants we have
propositional presuppositions involved. In the b-forms,
the first word carries the new information, while the rest
of the clause is presupposed already. The new information
is brought in contrastively so that we could, e.g., imagine
(ZlAb) and (Zle) to be responses to utterances of the

following nature:

Ab to - "the old man is in the boathouse."

Bb to - "there is an old woman in the cottage.”

In (ZlAb) we are still talking about the old man but
the item carrying the lowest degree of CD is the final
verb. In the same way, in (21Bb) we are talking about the

cottage but the most thematic item is the final verb. The

51

initial elements in both variants bring in the new
information, and they also indicate what we say about the
item we are talking about. Thus we notice that the rheme
and what we say about the tapic, coincide, but the theme
and the tOpic do not.

If we look at the c-forms we find out that in both
cases the second item is presupposed, and this also
indicates the thing we are talking about. But the initial
element is the carrier of the highest degree of CD and thus
the rheme, while the last item seems to indicate what we
are saying about the theme. These variants could be imagined
to be reactions to the negation or other challenge of the
underlying propositions (which look like the a-forms).

For example, the following could be set up:

21Ac reacts to - "the old man is not in the cottage."

21Bc reacts to - "there is no old man in the cottage."

I consider the verb to be the most rhematic element
because it is the verb that directly meets the challenge of
the preceding linguistic/non-linguistic situation. The
verb, or more accurately, the emphatic affirmation it
carries, gives us the information which is not recoverable
from the context. The last item, which indicates what we
are sying about the theme, is also rhematic, but less so
than the verb. In the c-forms all the items are already

contextually established but it is the "narrow scene," the

52

very purpose of the act of communication that determines the
rheme. In other words, the theme and rheme are established
in terms of the relations within this one clause where all
elements are contextually dependent in a parallel fashion
to the establishing of the same relations within introductory
utterances where all words are contextually independent.
Since we now have clearly a situation where what we
are talking about and what we are saying about it on the
one hand, and the theme/rheme on the other, do not coincide
completely, it is better to make this distinction explicit.
Thus I will use the terms ihgmg and 22222 for the different
degrees of CD following Firbas, but the other choice, as

already indicated, is between tOpic and comment:

A. tOpic = what I am talking about new
comment = what I say about the topic
B. theme 2 presupposed, contextually dependent, carrier

of the lowest degree of CD

rheme contextually independent, carrier of the

highest degree of CD3

Thus we can now say that theme and topic, and also
rheme and comment coincide in the unmarked forms; in the
b-forms the rheme and comment coincide but not the theme
and the topic; in the last pair, the c-forms, the theme and

the topic coincide, but not the rheme and the comment.

53

We could note here that in the b-forms the rhematism
of the initial word lies more in the contrast than in the
content of the lexical item itself, even though the content
also interacts with the consituation. But in the final
items of the a-forms it is the contents of the words
themselves that are the carriers of the new information.
And in the c-forms the rheme is the emphatic affirmation
carried by the verb, and not the content of the verb itself.

Now we see that in the two columns, A and B, we have
constant t0pic and comment: in column A the topic is always
the subject and the comment is always the location. In
column B the topic is always the location, and the subject
is always the comment. These notions overlap positionally
in all the variant-pairs in the two columns.

Also the theme and the rheme overlap positionally in
the columns but they vary vertically between a-, b-, and
c-forms as to the lexical items they are attached to. In Aa
(SVO) the theme is the subject, the rheme is the location;
in Ba (OVS) the theme is the location and the rheme is the
subject. In Ab (OSV) the location is the rheme but the
verb is the theme; in Bb (SOV) the subject is the rheme and
the final verb the theme, the least informative element.

In Ac (VSO) and Bc (VOS) the initial word is the rheme (the
verb), in Ac the theme is the subject and in Bc the theme

is the location.

54

All these notions thus overlap positionally in each
pair in the two columns. Below I give first the positional
distribution of the theme and the rheme (and the loudest
stress), and then the same for the topic and the comment,
and stress. The third part illustrates how these two
distributions are superimposed over each other in the six

variants.

 

 

 

 

 

i) .A + B 11) .A + B
pos. 1 pos. 2 p95. 3 pos. 1 pos. 2 pos. 3
a. Theme Rheme a. Topic Comment
b. Rhgmg Theme b. Comment. Topic
c. Rhgmg Theme c. Topic Comment
iii) A + B

 

pos. 1 pos. 2 pos. 3

a. T0pic Comment
Theme Rheme

b. Comment TOpic

ghgmg Theme
c. Topic Comment
Rhgmg Theme
A. SVO B. OVS
OSV SOV
[SO MOS

Let us look at another existential clause and see

how these notions apply there:

SS

22Aa. Takki riippuu naulakossa. 22Ba. Naulakossa riippuu takki.

 

coat hangs coatrack-in coatrack-in hangs coat
The coat hangs on the There hangs a coat on
coatrack. the coatrack.
b. Naulakossa takki riippuu. b. Takki naulakossa riippuu.
It's on the coatrack that It's a coat that is
the coat is hanging. hanging on the coatrack.
c. Riippuu takki naulakossa. c. Rii uu naulakossa takki.
e coat does hang on the There does hang a coat
coatrack. on the coatrack.

In the a-variants above the first item is the topic
and also the theme, and the last item is the comment and
the rheme. In the b-forms the first item is the comment
and rheme, the second item is the t0pic, and the last item
is the theme. In the last pair the first item is the
rheme, the second the theme and the topic, and the last item
is the comment.

When we compare the distributions of the theme/rheme
and the topic/comment, we notice that the t0pic is always
thematic, presupposed, though not always the theme prOper,
and the comment is always rhematic though not always rheme
prOper. We will see in the examples to come that this
requirement seems to be an inherent property of topic and
comment. And this appears to be a pragmatically obvious
prerequisite since tOpic is what we are talking about, and
of course that which we are talking about carries lower
degrees of information than that which we say about it,
which again pragmatically ought to be more important,

informative, than the topic.

56

Below, I give a couple of examples of existential
clauses where we can observe in all their 3 x 2 alternants
the thematic and topical relations prOposed above:

23 I. Auto ajaa kadulla. The car is being driven on
car drives street-on the street.

II. Laiva kulkee merellg. The ship is travelling on
ship moves ocean-on the ocean.

III. Lapsi leikkii pihalla. The child is playing in the yard.
child plays yard-on

IV. Koira juoksi torille. The dog ran to the market-place.

dog ran market-
place-to
V. Juna lahti asemalta. The train departed from the
train departed station- station.
from

In the above examples we had two unmarked forms --
SVO and OVS -- which can be contextually independent as a
whole so that no word is contextually dependent, and they
follow the basic distribution of CD. It was mentioned in
the preceding chapter that Firbas, when discussing existential
verbs, stated that if we have a verb of the type specified,
and a subject, and both are contextually independent, then
the subject is the rheme due to the operation of the
semantic structure. As we see, this is not the case here.
It is probably due to the particular nature of Finnish
existential verbs. Thus what we have here is simply that
due to communicative purposes either the subject or the

location is rhematic, and this choice is indicated by

S7

placing the rheme at the end, i.e., as the comment. Thus
the communicative purpose -- what we want to say about
something -- renders certain lexical items rhematic due to
the speaker's intentions, which we can identify with the
word order principle of the basic distribution of CD (and
in marked arrangements the emotive word order principle).
Thus in the Ba variant where the subject is rhematic, it
is rhematic due to the speaker's intentions rather than to
the sememic structure.

Ikola (1964, 28) has pointed out that the difference
in order may also indicate whether the existence of the
subject is presupposed or whether it is expressed by the
utterance. The following example illustrates this clearly.
The A-column presupposes the existence of the subject while
the B-column rather expresses the existence of the subject
in general. And this in fact reflects the speaker's
intentions and the context -- what has been talked about,

and what is being said now:

24Aa. Isfintfl on talossa. 24Ba. Talossa on isanta.

squire is house-in house-in is squire
The squire is in the The house has a squire.
house.

b. Talossa isanta on. b. Isanta talossa on.
It's 1n the house where The house has a s uire.
the squire is. (and nothing else;

c. On isanta talossa. c. On talossa ishnta.
The squire ii in the house. The house does indeed

have a squire.

58

In set A we express the location of the subject --
his existence is already presupposed, while in set B the
information is that the house has a squire, we are not
talking about his location. The following set exemplifies

this same phenomenon:

ZSAa. Autotalli on alakerrassa. 25Ba. Alakerrassa on autotalli.

 

 

garage is basement-in basement-in is garage
The garage is in the There is a garage in the
basement. basement.

b. Alakerrassa autotalli on. b. Autotalli alakerrassa on.
It's in the basement where It's a garage that is
the garage is. in the basement.

c. On autotalli alakerrassa. c. On alakerrassa autotalli.
The garage 13 in the There i§.a garage in
basement. the basement.

But the semantic structure may influence the arrange-

ment. The sememic components definite and indefinite, not

 

as the notive species, but rather as inherent features of
certain lexical items, may determine the arrangement by
rendering certain words inherently thematic (definite) or
inherently rhematic (indefinite, unspecifiable). In the
following examples we have subjects which are inherently
indefinite or definite, and thus also inherently rhematic

or thematic. In the forms to follow immediately below, the
subject is indefinite:

26Aa. *Kuivuus vallitsee Saharassa. 26Ba. Saharassa vallitsee/

drought obtains Sahara-in Sahara-in/ kuivuus.

obtains drought
In Sahara there
obtains drought.

27Aa.

28Aa.

b.

C.

59

*Saharassa kuivuus vallitsee.

 

*Vallitsee kuivuus Saharassa.

 

*Routa on maassa.
frost is ground-in

*Maassa routa on.

*Qn routa maassa.

*Nalanhatfl on Etiopiassa.
famine is Ethiopia-in

I! V! 'I 'l

Etiopiassa nalanhata on.

 

'I I! I!

*Qn|nalanh5ta Etiopiassa.

b. Kuivuus Saharassa
vallitsee.
It's drought that obtains
in the Sahara.

c. Vallitsee Saharassa
kuivuus.
There obtains indeed
drought in the Sahara.

 

27Ba. Maassa on routa.
ground-in is frost

The ground is frozen.

b.?Routa maassa on.
It 15 frozen that
the ground is.

c. On maassa routa.
The ground is indeed
frozen.

283a. Etiopiassa on nHlthHta.
Ethiopia—in is famine
There is famine in

EthiOpia

b. Nalanhata EtiOpiassa on.
There is famine in
Ethiopia (and not, e.g.,
abundance)

 

c. On Etiopiassa nalanhata.
There is indeed famine
in EthIEpia.

27Bb is not quite acceptable since it is difficult

to imagine with what the frost or the state of being frozen

could be contrasted.

Thus this is

a purely pragmatic matter.

In columns A above, the subjects, which were inherently

indefinite, unspecified by nature, appeared in a slot for

definite, thematic elements, and the results were bad, while

in B-columns all variants were good (except for 27Bb).

60

The following examples have an inherently definite
subject, a proper noun, which cannot refer to but a single,

clearly identifiable object or set:

29Aa. Suomi sijaitsee pohjoisessa.
Finland is located north-in
Finland is located in the
north.

b. Pohjpisessa Suomi sijaitsee.
t's in the north that
Finland is located.

 

c. Sijaitsee Suomi pohjoisessa.
Finland i5 indeed located
in the north.

 

29Ba.*Pohjoisessa sijaitsee Suomi
North-in is located Finland.

b.*Suomi pohjoisessa sijaitsee

c.*Sijaitsee pohjoisessa Suomi.

30Aa. Kekkonen asuu Tamm1n1emessa.
Kekkonen lives Tamminiemi-in
Kekkonen lives in Tamminiem1.

o . H
b. Tamm1n1emessa Kekkonen asuu.
It's in Tamminiemi where
Kekkonen l1ves.

 

o . H
c. Asuu Kekkonen Tamm1n1emessa.
K. does indeed live in Tamminiemi.

30Ba.*Tamminiemess§ asuu Kekkonen
Tamminiemi-in lives Kekkonen.

O O "
b. Kekkonen Tamm1n1emessa asuu
It's Kekkonen who lives in
Tamminiemi.

c.*Asuu Tamminiemessa Kekkonen

61

Example (30Bb) is acceptable because Kekkonen can
be easily contrasted with somebody else (e.g., KoiVisto).
The unacceptability of the second column (B) is caused by
the inherent thematicity of the subject, which cannot take
on the classifying function of the final position, which
implies a certain degree of non-specificity. Also the
thematicity of the location is involved: in (29B) the
location is not inherently thematic while in (30Bb) it is.
This fact probably makes on its part (30Bb) acceptable.

The example below has a pronoun subject, an inherently
thematic item, and we see the same as in the above examples --

the second column is less acceptable:

 

31Aa. Se menee Helsinkiin. 31Ba.*Helsinkiin menee se.
it goes Helsinki-to Helsinki-to goes it
It goes to Helsinki.
b. Helsinkiin se menee. b.?Sg Helsinkiin menee.
It's to Helsinki that
it goes.
c. Menee se Helsinkiin. c.*Menee Helsinkiin se.

It does go to Helsinki.

These last examples have shown us how the sememic
level Operates in rendering certain lexical items inherently
definite or indefinite, and at the same time inherently
thematic or rhematic, respectively. These sentences thus
illustrate the functioning of the semantic word order
principle, and the requirement that the topic cannot be

rhematic and the comment cannot be thematic.

62

We can thus now conclude that the traditional notions
of notive species, nouns' classifying functions, whether
the existence of the subject is presupposed (topic) or
whether it is expressed (comment) are subsumed under the
topical and thematic structure; they are part of the text
strategy. Word order is not only determined by the speaker's
intentions, which would be covered by the word order
principle of the basic distribution of CD and the emotive
principle, but also by the semantic structure of the language.
In the next section we will see examples where purely
pragmatic factors render subjects rhematic, i.e., the
arrnagement is influenced by factors outside the discourse

and the language.

Transitive Clauses

 

The first two examples of transitive clauses have
been looked at already earlier but now we can see how the

notions developed this far apply there:

32Aa. Juho 1y8 Heikkia. 32Ba. Heikkia 1y8 Juho.

Juho hits Heikki-part. Heikki— part hits Juho.
Juho is hitting Heikki. Heikki is being hit by Juho.

b. Heikkia Juho ly3. b. Juho Heikkia ly3.
It's Heikki that J. is It's Juho who is hitting
hitting Heikki.

c. L 3 Juho Heikkia. c. L23 Heikkia Juho.
Juho is indeed hitting Helkki is indeed being

Heikki. hit by Juho.

63

33Aa. Marssijat pysayttivat liikenteen.
demonstrators blocked traffic-gen.
The demonstrators blocked the traffic.

b. Liikenteen marssijat pysayttivat.
It was the traffic that the demonstrators blocked.

 

c. Pysayttivat marssijat liikenteen.
The demonstrators did indeed block the traffic.

 

33Ba. Liikenteen pysayttivat marssijat.
traffic-gen. blocked demonstrators
The traffic was blocked by the demonstrators.

 

b. Marssijat liikenteen pysflyttivflt.
It was the demonstrators who blocked the traffic.

 

c. PysHyttint liikenteen marssijat.
The traffic was indeed blocked by the demonstrators.

 

In the examples above we retain the same thematic and
tapical relations that were found in the existential clauses.
In the a-forms, the first item is the topic and theme.

Now, however, the Ba-form is not unmarked but marked, but
the comment, which is emphasized, is still non-contrastive
and rhematic. The last item in the Aa-forms is unstressed,
and it is also, as in (Ba), the comment and the rheme. The
b-forms have a contrastive initial comment/rheme while the
rest is presupposed; the second element is the topic and the
final one the theme. In the last pair, the c-forms, the
first item is emphatically affirmative and carries the
rheme, the second item is the tOpic and the theme,and the
last one is the comment. The comment is rhematic in this

last pair, though it is not the rheme prOper.

64

These relations are found in all the 2 x 3-variants
of the following sentences:
34 I. Routa sy3vytt33 maata. Frost corrodes the ground.
frost corrodes ground-

part.

II. Valaat sybvat planktonia. Whales eat plankton.
whales eat plankton-

part.
III. Mirja saestaa Leenaa. Mirja accompanies Leena (on
Mirja accompanies Leena- e.g., the piano).
part.

IV. Caesar hallitsee Roomaa. Ceasar governs Rome.
Caesar governs Rome-

part.
V. Naapuri l3ysi kirjan. The neighbor found a book.
neighbor found book-
gen.

One difference from the existential clauses we can
note immediately: the prOper noun in final position does not
acquire any unacceptable classifying functions as was the
case often in the existential clauses. In the existential
clauses there was a nexus between the subject and the
location -- the emphasis was on the quasipredicate -— and
not between the verb and the subject as is the case here.
Also, in transitive clauses there is a nexus between the
verb and the object, and thus the verb has a clearly more
prominent role in these types of clause than in the existen-
tial clauses where the verb was almost negligible. This

difference probably explains why the nouns behave differently --

65

closer relations to the verb might influence the whole
clause. This difference in the nature of the verb, and its
relation to the complement perhaps is the source of the
frequent final stress in the OVS-variant.

In the above examples only the (Aa) (SVO) was
unmarked, but in the following cases this same (Aa) cannot
occur with the unmarked stress pattern but only with a
marked one, and therefore they are indicated as unacceptable.
The Ba-form is the unmarked alternant in these cases:
3SAa. *Kaflrme puri minua. 35Ba. Minua puri kagrme.

snake bit me me bit snake
I was bitten by a snake.

b. Minua kaarme puri. b. Kagrme minua puri.
It was me who was bitten It was a snake that bit me.
by a snake.
c. *Puri kaarme minua. c. Puri minua kaarme.
I was indeed bitten by a
snake.

36Aa. *Kihti vaivaa jalkaani. 36Ba. Jalkaani vaivaa kihti.

arthritis bothers leg- leg-my bothers arthritis
my Arthritis bothers my leg.
b. *Jalkaani kihti vaivaa. b. Kihti jalkaani vaivaa.

It's arthritis that
bothers my leg.

c. *Vaivaa kihti jalkaani. c. Vaivaa jalkaani kihti.

Arthr1tis does indeed
bother my leg.

We see that (35Ab) is acceptable and this is because
we easily find a contrast for the object, and the subject in

this utterance has been linguistically identified in the

66

preceding context. The same does not apply to (36Ab)

because arthritis has a different semantic composition, it

 

cannot, e.g., be counted the same way snakes can. However,
the importance of these examples is that the (Ba) is the
unmarked alternant and not the (Aa). In these clauses the
rhematicity of the subject is determined partly (in case of
the snake, completely) pragmatically, and not linguistically.
This would imply that these common nouns cannot in clauses
like these, take the naming function (initial position) but
only the classifying one (final). Thus the rhematism of

the subject may be determined, not only by the speaker's
intentions and the sememic level, but also by the pure
pragmatics of the situation.

The following example illustrates how both a-forms
can be unmarked in a transitive clause if the nature of the
subject and the object conform to the underlying communica-
tive pattern. The marked variants are somewhat odd since
it would be difficult to imagine a natural context for them,
but the importance of these utterances lies in the two

unmarked alternants:

37Aa. Tuska ahdisti sydantgni. 37Ba. Sydenteni ahdisti tuska.

 

pain plagued heart-my heart-my plagued pain
The pain plagued my heart. My heart was plagued by
pain.
b.25yd3nt3ni tuska ahdisti. b.?Tuska sydantani ahdisti.
It was my heart that the It was a pain that
pain plagued. plagued my heart.
c.?Ahdisti tuska sydantani. c.?Ahdisti sydantani tuska.
eart was indeed A pa1n did indeed

plagued by the pain. plague my heart.

67

We saw in this section that in transitive clauses we
may also have two unmarked alternants -- SVO and OVS. The
purpose of the arrangement is to distinguish between the
tOpic and the comment. But these notions have to be
connected to the consituation in such a way that topic is
always thematic and comment is always rhematic. What is
thematic depends on the speaker's intentions -- what he
wants to present as new and given, and this is naturally
also tied to the whole consituation. But also semantic
factors are involved here in that certain nouns are inherently
thematic or rhematic, and thus also inherently the t0pic or
the comment, respectively. In addition to this, the pragmatic
facts of life may render certain elements as inherently

rhematic, and thus they also would be the comment inherently.

Intransitive Clauses

 

We will find the same communicative structure in the

intransitive clauses below as we found earlier:

38Aa. Ruoka kelpasi sialle. 38Ba. Sialle kelpasi ruoka.

food was pig-to pig-to was food.
acceptable acceptable
The food was palatable The pig found the food
to the pig. palatable.
b. Sialle ruoka kelpasi. b. Ruoka sialle kelpasi.

It was to the pig that It was the food that
the food was palatable. the pig found palatable.

c. Kel asi ruoka sialle. c. Kel asi sialle ruoka.
The food was found indeed The p1g found that the
palatable by the pig. food was indeed palatable.

68

"H

39Aa. Lumi sulaa kevaalla. 39Ba.
snow melts spring-adess.
The snow melts in the spring.
b. Kevfifillfi lumi sulaa.

It's in the spring that
the snow melts.

Sulaa lumi kevggllg.
The snow does melt in
the spring.

4OAa.?Tuli raivosi Sljykentilla. 40Ba.
fire raged oilfields-in
The fire raged in the
oilfields.
b.?Oljykent1113 tuli raivosi. b
It was in the oilfields that
the fire raged.

 

c.?Raivosi tuli 31jykenti113.
e 1re raged indeed in the
oilfields.

C

41Aa. Me keskustelimme politiikasta.
we discussed

We discussed politics.

Politiikasta me keskustelimme.

 

b.?Lumi kevaalla

Kevagllg sulaa lumi
In the spring

'" sulaa.
It's the snow that melts

in the spring.

Sulaa kevfiflllfl lumi.
In the spring the snow
does indeed melt.

Oljykentilla raivosi tuli.
oilfields-in raged fire
In the oilfields there
raged a fire.

.Tuli Bijykentiiia raivosi.

It was fire that raged
in the oilfields.

.Raivosi Sljykentiila tuli.

There raged indeed a
fire in the oilfields.

politics-elative.

It was politics that we discussed.

Keskustelimme me politiikasta.
we did indeed discuss politics.

 

41Ba. *Politiikasta keskustelimme mg.

politics-elat. discussed

b.

we

Mg politiikasta keskustelimme.

It was us who discussed politics.

C.

*Keskustelimme politiikasta me.

 

In these examples we have the same relations between

topic/comment and theme/rheme as earlier.

In (40) the

sememic level, and also pragmatics, render the subject

the snow melts.

69

inherently rhematic, and thus it is inherently comment, too.
In (41) the subject pronoun is of course inherently
contextually dependent, and as such the t0pic. We also
found two unmarked arrangements, which were determined by
the speaker's intentions and the context, i.e., the word

order principle of the basic distribution of CD.

Introductory Utterances

 

Firbas proposed the use of communicative dynamism
because it would enable us to use the same terms, theme
and rheme, for both contextually dependent and independent
utterances. We thus analyze introductory utterances in
terms of the relations within the utterance itself. Each
of the following examples begins a fairy tale, and thus has

no preceding context (from Haavio, 1978):

42 I. Oli kerran prinsessa. Once upon a time there was
was once princess a princess.
II. Oli emanta muinoin. Once upon a time, ages ago,
was farmer's ages ago there was a (particular)
W1fe farmer's wife.

III. Rakensi paaskynen pesan. The swallow built a nest.
built swallow nest

IV. Kylvi mies nauriita (kerran...) Once upon a time the
sowed man rutabagas (once...) man sowed rutabagas...

V. Elipa kuninkaan kartanon sikolgtissa Sika'Sippurahgntg.
lived king's court's sty-in pig curly-tail
Once upon a time there lived in the king's court's
sty Piggy the Curly-Q.

70

All these sentences are uttered with the neutral,
unmarked stress pattern, even though they have marked word
orders, i.e., they are unmarked utterances.4

As was established earlier (42 1) contains hetero-
geneous degrees of CD, and it follows the basic distribution
of CD. We find the same thing in all the examples in (42).

We can also analyze these utterances in terms of topic and
comment in the same way as before. These would be t0pical
variants of A and B columns as follows: I and V would
correspond to the c-form in column B (VOS), and II, III, and
IV would belong to column A (VSO).

Thus we can notice that for example in (42 I) the
subject, which is the comment, is indefinite and thus
rhematic, while in (42 II) the subject is definite, it is
the topic. Of course the definiteness is relative, but we
are speaking about the subject (emfinta) here, and the time
adverbial is the comment. In (42 I) we are speaking rather
about some point in time long past, and what we want to say
about this is that the princess existed at that time, the
princess being the comment.

We have now analyzed introductory utterances in terms
of the same tOpic/comment--structure as was found in the
contextualized utterances. The theme/rheme-structure, however,
follows the basic distribution of CD which is also
characteristic of the unmarked arrangements. It is the

immediate purpose of communication, the "narrow scene,"

71

that determines the theme and the rheme in these

utterances .

V. CATALYSIS

We have now examined some existential, transitive,
and intransitive clauses, and a couple of unmarked utterances
with marked arrangement, and it appears that we can find a
communicatively functional use of word order in these
examples. The arrangement depends on what the speaker is
speaking about, and what he is saying about it. He may
choose for the topic either the subject or the verb comple-
ment, and depending on this choice, the comment is the verb
complement or the subject, respectively. The choice is
thus tied to specific lexical items, and expressed by word
order. This choice is, however, constrained not only by
the speaker's intentions and the consituation, but also by
the sememic level, and the pragmatics of the total situation,
so, that the topic is always thematic, and the comment is
always rhematic. Thus the speaker's intentions and the
consituation may render certain lexical items thematic or
rhematic, and also the semantics and the pragmatics of the
consituation occasionally render items inherently thematic
or rhematic.

The notions topic/comment and theme/rheme cover the
notive species, and also the naming and classifying functions

of nouns, which are closely related to the idea of whether

72

73

the existence of the subject was presupposed or expressed.

The psychological subject and predicate were in fact defined
by Hakulinen in terms of theme/rheme and topic/comment without
using these particular terms.

We can divide the utterances discussed into those
with marked word order and those with unmarked word order.
In the latter group, we have utterances with an underlying
neutral stress pattern. In these, we find that the
advancement of the theme and the rheme follows the basic
distribution of CD, with the theme preceding the rheme.

Here we would say that it is the word order principle of
basic distribution of CD that is in operation, and this
would cover.part of the speaker intentions. Also the
semantic word order principle is effective here. And
pragmatic facts of the consituation may be influential --
this can perhapsmost conveniently be taken care of by the
gnostemic level. The sememic level and some pragmatic-
facts may render a sentence with an unmarked word order a
marked utterance, i.e., an utterance with a marked stress
pattern.

In the utterances which have marked arrangements, the
emotive word order principle is the main organizing
principle, whichalso covers the speaker intentions.
Naturally the other principles are also involved in, e.g.,
determing the thematicity/rhematicity of the elements.

These utterances bring in new information either contrastively,

74

or with emphatic affirmation. The contrast is not always
explicit -- it is often only by implication, or in an
exclusive sense. In these utterances we have the rheme
preceding the theme. But also here the "narrow scene"
operates so that these marked arrangements, especially the
verb initial variants, may appear as unmarked utterances.

We can notice that, as Danes suggested, the t0pic
and the theme coincide in most cases -- and where they
don't, the t0pic is still thematic even if not theme proper.
Similarly the comment is always rhematic even if not rheme
proper.

As has become clear by now, I consider the SVO and
OVS variants (the a-forms) to have the unmarked word order.
But, as we have seen, these variants may, due to various
factors, also appear as marked utterances, i.e., with marked
stress pattern. Also, due to communicative purposes, at
least two of the marked word orders (VSO and VOS -- the
c-forms) may appear as unmarked utterances, i.e., with
unmarked stress pattern, but I do not propose that these
two word order variants also be considered unmarked in their
arrangement.

Why I do not propose this is clear: the introductory
utterances have a specific distribution; they only occur
in clearly stateable environments in the discourse -- in a
way they are "allo-forms" of the same alternants with the

marked stress pattern. They never occur in the same

75

environment. But the unmarked arrangements with marked and
unmarked stress patterns are not distributed that way.
Their stress pattern cannot be predicted by position, but
it is determined by the speaker intentions, the semantic
structure, and the pragmatics of the consituation. And
thus they can be unmarked both in initial and non-initial
positions which is not the case with the verb initial variants.

I will give below two diagrams depicting

the relevant choices at each level -- one diagram for the

sememic structure and one for the lexotactics.5

The diagrams
give us the underlying semologically relevant notions
(diagram I) and the corresponding word order patterns with
their canonical stress patterns (diagram II). Deviations
from this pattern are seen as a result of interaction of
various semological and pragmatic matters as they meet in
one utterance. Consequently, these are idosyncracies of
individual utterances and therefore I will not attempt to
include these in the diagrams. If I did, they would appear
in the semotactics as constraints on the co-occurrence
possibilities of various sememes, and would also be reflected
in the lexotactics.

In the first diagram, the semotactics, we have a
predication structure with one event sememe (verb), agent
(stands for any subject realizate), and a complement (which

can be another participant, circumstantial, etc.). The

tOpic and the emphasis are conditioned (the dotted line) so

76

that the utterance can have at most one of each, tOpic being
an obligatory choice and emphasis optional. These two are
controlled from the gnostology; if there is no signal for
emphasis coming from above, we take the zero-choice.

The topic is thus obligatory and its choice is
ordered so that the agent or the complement is elected
first for the topic, and then the remaining of these two
may optionally be emphasized. And if emphasis is chosen
for either agent or complement, the event may not be
emphasized; otherwise the event may be emphasized, but it
need not be since this choice is optional. We only need the
topic and the emphasis here since the comment and the theme/
rheme are predictable if the former are known -- it would be
redundant to include them, too.

The same applies to lexotactics (diagram II). If we
know the topic and the emphasized element, we can predict
all the alternants. What this diagram expresses is the
following: we go down the first line from the downward AND-
triangle and take the first line under the downward ordered
OR-"bracket," which gives us further below either the
subject, the verb, or the complement (S, V, or C, respectively).
If no emphasis is indicated, we have to take the tOpic of
the second line under that same downward OR, which gives us
either the subject or the complement.

The second position is filled following the second

line from the top. If topic has not occurred in the first

77

 

 

 

 

’ \
I \
"‘ S“
a. \
I \
I \
’ \
I
I \
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' A A
I
O
a
1 Agent Complement Event
|
t
\
\
. W
\
\
\
\
\
‘ I
\ I’
\
‘.‘ 4| ,’
Q I
\“ '
.1
F
.1
Topic Emphasis

Diagram 1. Semotactics.

78

Topic Emphasis

Diagram II. Lexotactics.

 

 

 

79

position, we have to take it; if it has occurred, we take
the verb, which is always second in the unmarked arrange-
ments. Thus the first lines under the OR-"brackets" give us
the marked word orders, and the second,the unmarked ones.
The third position is filled by whatever is left after the
first two choices. This is a performance model so that we
cannot make the same choice twice (e.g., have two subjects)
unless indicated; when one choice is used up, we cannot
take it any more.

Thus these diagrams give us the following arrange-
ments (with their corresponding stress patterns), and
nothing else (in an appendix I will give some traces of

these diagrams using examples from earlier chapters):

A. svo B. ovs
gsv gov
\_/so y_os

I will repeat below the distributional charts of
theme/rheme and topic/comment which are predictable on the
basis of information from gnostology and semology, and which
are distributed over the arrangements above in three

patterns which are identical in the two columns.

80

 

pos.l pos. 2 pos. 3

a. Theme Rheme
b. Rheme Theme

c. Rheme Theme

ii) A + B

 

pos. 1 pos. 2 pos. 3

a. Topic Comment

b. Comment TOpic

 

 

c. Topic Comment
iii) A + B
pos. 1 pos. 2 pos. 3
a. Topic Comment
Theme Rheme
b. Comment T0pic
Rheme Theme
c. Topic Comment
Rheme Theme

Word order thus appears to have a communicatively
functional role in the clauses discussed. It distinguishes
between topic and comment. Stress, an inseparable accompani—
ment, is always involved with the highest degree of CD but
not vice versa. Stress, however, cannot be placed everywhere

and thus it is the word order indicating the topic and the

81

comment which controls the stress assignment. This reflects
the fact that topic is always thematic and thus cannot

carry the loud stress. An example of this incompatibility
was given in Chapter IV by example (20C) from Enkvist where
the tOpic, if stressed, made the utterance unacceptable.

The comment is always rhematic; it can take the stress but
need not because the rhematicity, like thematicity, is often
determined in terms of the relations within one clause only.
These same relations between the tOpic and the comment

can probably be extended to longer utterances than these,
but then we would need to make use of the notion of

transition.

NOTES

1. The nominative and partitive subjects have been under
lively discussion for a long time. We can distinguish
between them roughly so that the nominative subject refers
to a totality, an indivisible subject, while the partitive
subject has as its referent part of some larger unit. This
is only a simplified statement since it is, for example,
sometimes difficult to decide whether the subject is
divisible or not. The following examples illustrate these

two subject-cases:

a. Sotavaki tuli kaupunkiin. The military came into the
military came city-to city.
-nom.
b. Sotavflkea tuli kaupunkiin. There came military into the
military came city-to city.
-part. '
c. Ruoka on p8dellH. The food is on the table.
food is table-on
-nom.
d. PBydfillH on ruokaa. There is food on the table.
table-on is food-
part.
e. Lapsia juoksee pihalla. There are children running
children run yard-on in the yard.
-part.
f. Lapset juoksevat pihalla. The children are running in
children run yard-on the yard.
-nom.

2. Following the usage in stratificational framework. I am
using the terms semantic and sememic/semological in a way

parallel to the way the terms phonetic and phonemic/

82

83

phonological are used. Thus semantic refers to meaning in
general, as it relates to the substance of language, and

sememic/semological refers to meaning relevant to the form

 

of language (cf. Danes's semantic level contains only

meaning which is linguistically relevant).

3. I am aware that Kiefer (1976) at least has given the
definitions the other way around, i.e., topic = "given,"
theme = "what I am talking about," etc., but since I am
using Firbas's notion of communicative dynamism, I prefer

my way.

4. Incidentally, I found few, if any, introductory
utterances with the b-form arrangements (OSV and SOV).
Maybe they carry more clearly propositional presuppositions

than the other forms.

5. For further details about the notation, see Lockwood

1972.

REFERENCES

Abbreviations used:
SPFFBU = Sbornik Praci Filosofické Fakulty Brnénské University
TLP = Travaux linguistiques de Prague

Finnish titles are given a translation in brackets.

Bolinger, Dwight. 1952. "Linear Modification", PMLA, 1117-
1144.

Danes, Frantisek. 1966. "A Three-Level Approach to Syntax".
TLP 1, 225-240.

1967. "Order of Elements and Sentence Intonation"
in To Honor Roman Jakobson, The Hague, Mouton, 499-512.

 

1971. "On Linguistic Strata (Levels)", TLP 4, 127-143.

Enkvist, Nils Erik. 1975. Tekstilingvistiikan peruskasitteitg,
[Basic Concepts in Textlinguistics], Helsinki,
Gaudeamus.

1976. "Prolegomena to a Symposium on 'the Interaction
of Parameters Affecting Word Order'" in Nils Erik
Enkvist and Viljo Kohonen (eds.). Reports on Text

Lin uistics -- Approaches to Word Ofder, pp. 5-13:
Tur u, Abo Akademif

 

 

Firbas, Jan. 1962. "Notes on the Function of the Sentence
in the Act of Communication," SPFFBU, XI, A10, 133-147.

1964. "From Comparative Word Order Studies", Brno
Studies in English, 4, 111-128.

 

1966. "On Defining the Theme in Functional Sentence
Perspective", TLP 1, 267-280.

1971. "On the Concept of Communicative Dynamism in
the Theory of Functional Sentence Perspective”,
SPFFBU, A19, 135-144.

Haavio, Martti. 1978. Iloinen Elainkirja [Happy Animal Book],
Porvoo, WSOY

 

84

85

Hakulinen, Lauri. 1946 II, 1968. Suomen kielen rakenne ja
kehit 5 [Structure and Development of the FinniSh
Language], Helsinki, Otava.

 

Halliday, M.A.K. 1967. "Notes on Transitivity and Theme
in English", part 2, Journal of Linguistics, 3, 199-
244.

 

Halliday, M.A.K. and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in
English, London, Longman.

 

Heinamaki, Orvokki. 1976. "Problems of Basic Word Order",
in Nils Erik Enkvist and Viljo Kohonen (eds.).
Reports on Textlinguistics -- Approaches to Word
Order, pp. 95-106, Turku, Abo Akademi}

 

Holman, Eugene. 1976. "Some Thoughts on Variable Word
Order", in Nils Erik Enkvist and Viljo Kohonen
(eds.). Reports on Textlinguistics -- Approaches to
Word Order, pp. 125-143, Turhu, A50 Akademi.

 

 

Ikola, Osmo. 1964. Lauseopin kysymyksia -- tutkielmia
nykysuomen syntaksin alalta [Syntactic Pr6blems --
Studies in Modern Finnish Syntax], Helsinki, Suomalaisen
kirjallisuuden seura.

 

 

Karttunen, Frances. 1975. ”Functional constraints in
Finnish Syntax", in Papers from the Parasession on
Functionalism, Chicago Linguistic Society, 232-243.

Kiefer, Ferenc. 1976. "Some Remarks on Topic-Comment and
Presuppositions", in Nils Erik Enkvist and Viljo
Kohonen (eds.). Reports on Textlin uistics --
Approaches to Word Order, pp. 157-1 3, Turku, Abo Akademi.

 

 

Lockwood, David 6.1972. Introduction to Stratificational
Lingpistics, New thk, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

 

 

Siro, Paavo. 1964. Suomen kielen lauseoppi [Finnish Syntax],
Helsinki, Tietosanakirja OY”

 

Strawson, P.F. 1967. "On Referring", in I.M. Copi and
J.A. Gould (eds). Contemporaiy Readings in Logical
Theory, pp. 105-127, Macmillan.

 

APPENDIX

What follows are traces from the major diagrams given on
pages 77 and 78. The examples come from the three different
clause types discussed.

Traces for 22Aa (page 55) Takki riippuu naulakossa.

coat hangs coatrack-in
The coat hangs on the coatrack.

semotactics

 

 

 

takki topic naulakossa riippuu
lexotactics
topic
Takki riippuu naulakossa
s v c

86

87

Traces for 26Bc (p. 59) Vallitsee Saharassa kuivuus.
Ebtains Sahara-in drought
There obtains indeed drought in the
Sahara.

 

semotactics

 

 

kuivuus Saharassa topic vallitsee emphasis

lexotactics

 

emphasis

 

Vallitsee Saharassa kuivuus
v c s

Traces for 33Ab (p. 63) Liikenteen marssijat pysayttivat.
traffic demonstrators blocked
It was the traffic that the demonstra-
tors blocked.

 

88

semotactics

 

 

marssijat topic liikenteen emphasis pysgyttivat

lexotactics

 

  

topic

emphasis

Liikenteen marssijat pysgyttivat
c s v

Traces for 35Bb (p. 65) Kggrme minua puri.
snaEe me bit
It was a snake that bit me.

semotactics

 

 

kaarme emphasis minua topic puri

89

lexotactics

 

emphasis

 

"H

Kaarme minua puri
s c v

Traces for 38Ba (p. 67) Sialle kelpasi ruoka.
pig-to was food
acceptable
The pig was happy to have
palatable food.

 

 

 

semotactics
sialle t0pic ruoka kelpasi
lexotactics
topic
Sialle kelpasi ruoka

C V S

90

Sulaa lumi kevgalla.
melts snow spring-in
The snow does melt in the spring.

Traces for 39Ac (p. 64)

 

semotactics

 

lumi topic kevaalla

sulaa emphasis

lexotactics

emphasis

 

"H .

Sulaa lumi kevaallg

V S C