published_or_final_version / Education / Master / Master of Education

published_or_final_version / Education / Master / Master of Education

published_or_final_version / English Studies / Master / Master of Arts

published_or_final_version / Education / Master / Master of Education

published_or_final_version / Language Studies / Master / Master of Arts

published_or_final_version / Education / Master / Master of Education

Topicalization refers to the sentence-initial placement of constituents other than the subject and is often listed as a non-canonical construction [cf. Ward, Gregory, Betty J. Birner and Rodney Huddleston (2002). “Information Packaging.” Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum, eds. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1363–1447.]. In this paper, tokens of topicalization in the direct conversations in the International Corpus of English for Hong Kong and India and, for comparison, Great Britain are analysed. In order to find out if topicalization is a contact-induced feature, typological profiles with regard to topic-prominence [Li, Charles N. and Sandra A. Thompson (1976). “Subject and Topic: A New Typology of Language.” Charles N. Li, ed. Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, 457–489.] are created for three Indo-Aryan, three Dravidian and two Sinitic languages. I suggest that the low frequencies of topicalization in Hong Kong English and the high frequencies of topicalization in Indian English are primarily due to differences in intensity of contact [Thomason, Sarah G. (2001). Language Contact. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.] and variety development [Schneider, Edgar W. (2007). Postcolonial English. Varieties Around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.]. Typological interference at the level of information structure is assumed to only come to the fore in further developed varieties and after prolonged contact.