Theme, Rheme, and Word Order: From Weil to Present-Day Theories

Christian Adjémian
Summary

Henri Weil’s thesis, published in Paris during the first half of the 19th century, is the first cogent theory of word order in European linguistics. Weil’s work is the first to argue that discourse structure has an effect on the internal structure of the sentence. His ideas are the direct ancestors of the concepts ‘psychological subject’ and ‘psychological predicate’ which so highly influenced stylistic work into the 20th century. Weil’s insights had very little direct influence on French linguistics but are the source of V. Mathesius’ ‘theme’ end ‘rheme’ and the subsequent Prague School theory of word order. This paper presents an overview of Weil’s thesis, followed by a critical evaluation, in the light of Weil’s work, of a sample of later studies on French word order. The fundamental concepts of Weil’s theory are traced into 20th-century linguistics, with particular attention to their evolution in Prague School theory. Finally, a brief survey of work in generative grammar on discourse and the sentence is presented. In conclusion it is claimed that the rediscovery in formal grammar of the role of discourse structure in shaping the internal structure of the sentence is a comtemporary confirmation of Weil’s thesis.

Quick links
Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

References

Adjémian, Christian
1978A Functional Generative Theory of the Structure of French: Intonation and problems in syntax. Ph.D. Diss., Univ. of Washington, Seattle.Google Scholar
Arrivé, Michel, and Jean-Claude Chevalier
1970La grammaire. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Auroux, Sylvain
1973L’Encyclopédie “Grammaire” et “langue” au XVIIIe siècle. Paris: Marne.Google Scholar
Blinkenberg, Andreas
1928L’ordre des mots en français moderne. 2 vols. Copenhague: A. F. Høst.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L.
1974 “Language and Consciousness”. Lg 50. 111–133.Google Scholar
Chevalier, Jean-Claude, et al.
1964Grammaire Larousse. Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1965Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
1971 “Deep Structure, Surface Structure, and Semantic Interpretation”. Semantics, ed. by Danny D. Steinberg and Leon A. Jakobovits, 183–216. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
1977 “On wh-movement”. Formal Syntax, ed. by Peter W. Culicover, T. Wasow, and A. Akmajian, 71–132. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Howard Lasnik
1977 “Filters and Control”. LIn 8.425–504.Google Scholar
Contreras, Heles
1976A Theory of Word Order with Special Reference to Spanish. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen
1969Topic and Comment: A study in Russian and general transformational grammar. Göteborg: Elandres Boktryckeri.Google Scholar
Daneš, František
1964 “A Three-level Approach to Syntax”. TLP 1.225–240.Google Scholar
1967 “Order of Elements and Sentence Intonation”. To Honor Roman Jakobson, 499–512. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
ed. 1974Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Firbas, Jan
1964a “From Comparative Word-Order Studies”. BSE 4.111–26.Google Scholar
1964b “On Defining the Theme in Functional Sentence Analysis”. TLP 1.267–280.Google Scholar
1974 “Some Aspects of the Czechoslovak Approach to Problems of Functional Sentence Perspective”. Daneš 1974.11–37.Google Scholar
Firbas, Jan, and K. Pala
1971 Review of Dahl 1969 JL 7.91–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foulet, Lucien
1919Petite Syntaxe de l’Ancien Français. Paris: H. Champion. (Repr. of 3rd ed. 1972.)Google Scholar
Francis, Nelson
1966 Review of Brno Studies in English, vol.4. Lg 42.142–49.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K.
1974The Role of Topic and Comment in Linguistic Theory. Ph.D. Diss., Univ. of Texas at Austin. (Available through Indiana University Linguistics Club.)Google Scholar
Hajičová, Eva, and Petr Sgall
1975 “Topic and Focus in Generative Grammar”. PiL 8.3–58.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K.
1967–68 “Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English. Parts 1–3”. JL 3.37–81, 199–244; 4.179–215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kellenberger, Hunter
1932The Influence of Accentuation on French Word Order. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press. (Repr., New York: Kraus 1965.)Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu
1975 “Three Perspectives in the Functional Approach to Syntax”. Functionalism, ed. by R. Grossman et al. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society 1975.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N.
ed. 1975Word Order and Word Order Change. Austin: Univ. of Texas Press.Google Scholar
ed. 1976Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mathesius, Vilém
1928 “On Linguistic Characterology with Illustrations from Modern English”. Actes du Premier Congrès International de Linguistes à la Haye, 56–63. La Haye: Mouton. (Repr. A Prague School Reader in Linguistics, ed. by J. Vachek, 59–67. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press 1964.)Google Scholar
Müller-Hauser, Marie-Louise
1943La mise en relief d’une idée en français moderne. Genève: Droz.Google Scholar
Scaglione, Aldo
1972The Classical Theory of Composition from its Origins to the Present. Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Sgall, Petr, Eva Hajičová, and Eva Benečová
1973Topic, Focus, and Generative Semantics. Kronberg: Scriptor Verlag.Google Scholar
Weil, Henri
1844De Vordre des mots dans les langues anciennes comparées aux langues modernes. Paris: F. Vieweg. (3rd ed. 1879.)Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin S.
1977 “Discourse and Logical Form”. LIn 8.101–39.Google Scholar
Zwanenburg, W.
1965Recherches sur la prosodie de la phrase française. Leiden: Univ. Pers.Google Scholar