The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Topic Continuity in Discourse: A quantitative cross-language study
Abstract
The functional notion of “topic” or “topicality” has suffered, traditionally, from two distinct drawbacks. First, it has remained largely ill defined or intuitively defined. And second, quite often its definition boiled down to structure-dependent circularity. This volume represents a major departure from past practices, without rejecting both their intuitive appeal and the many good results yielded by them. First, “topic” and “topicality” are re-analyzed as a scalar property, rather than as an either/or discrete prime. Second, the graded property of “topicality” is firmly connected with sensible cognitive notions culled from gestalt psychology, such as “predictability” or “continuity”. Third, we develop and utilize precise measures and quantified methods by which the property of “topicality” of clausal arguments can be studied in connected discourse, and thus be properly hinged in its rightful context, that of topic identification, maintenance and recoverability in discourse. Fourth, we show that many grammatical phenomena which used to be studied by linguists in isolation, all partake in one functional domain of grammar, that of topic identification. Finally, we demonstrate the validity of this new approach to the study of “topic” and “topicality” by applying the same text-based quantifying method to a number of typologically-diverse languages, in studying actual texts. Languages studied here are: Written and spoken English, spoken Spanish, Biblical Hebrew, Amharic, Hausa, Japanese, Chamorro and Ute.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Cognitive Status and the form of Referring Expressions in Discourse
Gundel, J., Hedberg, N., & Zacharski, R. (2019) · The Oxford Handbook of Reference · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199687305.013.5 · Cited by 1,645
The Discourse Basis of Ergativity
Bois, J. W. D. (1987) · Language · doi:10.2307/415719 · Cited by 1,244
A Discourse Explanation of the Grammar of Relative Clauses in English Conversation
Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (1990) · Language · doi:10.2307/414888 · Cited by 564
Introduction to frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure
Bybee, J. L., & Hopper, P. J. (2001) · Typological Studies in Language · doi:10.1075/tsl.45.01byb · Cited by 373
Metadata
- Authors
- Givón, T.
- Venue
- Typological Studies in Language
- Publisher
- John Benjamins Publishing Company
- Published
- 1983-01-01
- ISSN
- 0167-7373 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1568886291
- Cited by
- 716
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 22.17
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Topic Continuity in Discourse: A quantitative cross-language study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1075/tsl.3
- The paper
- Givón, T. (1983). Topic Continuity in Discourse: A quantitative cross-language study. Typological Studies in Language. https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.3
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.