Focus of attention in discourse 133sciousness. Thus the intended referent is assumed to be the least ‘obvious’
of the three at the point of use. An attested example is given under (12):
(12) ... Elliot Morley, the Countryside minister, said he thought it was possible,
with the new funds available, to aim at not just halting, but reversing the
declines [of UK farmland bird species] in the medium term. “I'm in no doubt
about the scale of this task, but I believe it is realistic to aim to do this by
2020”, he said. (Last paragraph of a 9 paragraph newspaper article ‘Ministers
pledge £1bn to save farmland birds’⎯The Independent, 7 August 2000).
The demonstrative term this task in the fourth line of this extract refers
back over the two preceding discourse units to the initial (macro-discourse)
topic, introduced in the first, namely, the UK government’s commitment to
halt and reverse the massive decline in farmland bird species in that coun-
try by the year 2020. Neither of Dik’s (1997a: Ch. 13) other two formal
criteria supposedly accompanying terms with the ResTop function appear
here, however (a connective indicating the start of a new discourse unit,
and a specific reference back to the discourse unit to which the ResTop
expression effects a return pop). It is the fact that the term itself occurs in a
unit which is discourse-final, marking the conclusion of the discourse as a
whole, I believe, which obviates the need for these two supposedly neces-
sary conditions here. I will deal with the fourth subcategory of Topics
recognized in FG (‘NewTops’) later in this section.^18
Now, an important difference in emphasis arises between the two theo-
ries, regarding the way in which each views the discourse function
associated with the expression-types at issue. For FG (and also other cogni-
tively-oriented approaches like the ‘Givenness Hierarchy’ of Gundel,
Hedberg and Zacharski, 1993), the context-bound Topic functions are
predicated solely on the discourse-cognitive status which the speaker is as-
suming the referent to enjoy in the addressee’s discourse model at the point
of use. For CS, on the other hand, the signals of DEIXIS are said to serve
as instructions to the addressee to concentrate a given level of attention on
the referent involved: HIGH – the referent is important to the current dis-
course concerns and so must be foregrounded relative to other referents;
MID – the referent is of medium importance with regard both to HIGH
DEIXIS and LOW DEIXIS referents; and LOW – the referent is of only
background, ‘scene-setting’ (for example) importance. As Leonard (1995)
and Aoyama (1995), respectively, point out in relation to the attested Swa-
hili and Japanese examples which they present, discourse referents are not
simply designated ‘decrementally’ with ever-decreasing levels of DEIXIS