Manaster-Ramer, A. 1992, "Malagasy and the Topic/Subject Issue", in Oceanic Linguistics, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 267--279. University of Hawai'i Press.
Manaster-Ramer, A. (1992). Malagasy and the Topic/Subject Issue. Oceanic Linguistics, 31 (2) , 267--279. University of Hawai'i Press.
Manaster-Ramer, Alexis. 1992. "Malagasy and the Topic/Subject Issue." In Oceanic Linguistics, 31 , no. 2: 267--279. University of Hawai'i Press.
Manaster-Ramer, Alexis. "Malagasy and the Topic/Subject Issue." Oceanic Linguistics. 31.2 (1992): 267--279.
Citation within the text:
(Manaster-Ramer 1992)
Save reference in Zotero
  source = {jstor},
  ISSN = {0029-8115},
  abstract = {A new proposal about subject and topic is offered, derived largely from an effort to see how Malagasy fits (or does not fit) in the typology proposed by Schachter (1976, 1977). This typology provides for two kinds of languages: those like Tagalog, that are supposed to have topics and actors but no subjects, and those like English, where the topic and actor properties are supposed to inhere in a single category, the subject. Malagasy is shown to represent a type of language essentially between English and Tagalog. Specifically, in Malagasy the so-called subject possesses both the properties of referential prominence, which Schachter attributes to topics, and the properties of role prominence, which he connects with actors. At the same time, English appears to lack altogether the kind of referential prominence found in both Malagasy and Tagalog (as well as many other languages of the Philippines). Thus, it is Malagasy that occupies the slot in the typology that was actually intended for languages like English, and it is English that does not really fit into Schachter's analysis. Accordingly, the following modifications of Schachter's typology are proposed: (a) languages can either have topics (that is, nominals with referential prominence) or not, (b) in English there is no topic, (c) in Malagasy the subject is also the topic, (d) the Malagasy subject cannot be identified with the actor (there being constructions in which the two are distinct), so role prominence is attributed cross-linguistically to subjects, not actors, and (d) hence, in Tagalog the nominal that possesses role prominence (and is distinct from the topic) must be analyzed as subject (even if it should always happen to be the actor). Thus, English has subjects and no topics, Malagasy has subjects that are also topics, and Tagalog distinguishes topics and subjects (that are also actors).},
  author = {Manaster-Ramer, Alexis},
  copyright = {Copyright 1992 University of Hawai'i Press},
  journal = {Oceanic Linguistics},
  jstor_articletype = {Full Length Article},
  jstor_date = {199224},
  jstor_formatteddate = {Winter, 1992},
  number = {2},
  pages = {267--279},
  publisher = {University of Hawai'i Press},
  title = {Malagasy and the Topic/Subject Issue},
  url = {http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0029-8115%28199224%2931%3A2%3C267%3AMATTI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B},
  volume = {31},
  year = {1992},