Cover not available
Part of
Information Structure and Reference Tracking in Complex Sentences
Edited by Rik van Gijn, Jeremy Hammond, Dejan Matić, Saskia van Putten and Ana Vilacy Galucio
[Typological Studies in Language 105] 2014
► pp. 71–98

Left dislocation and subordination in Avatime (Kwa)

 | Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen
Left dislocation is characterized by a sentence-initial element which is crossreferenced in the remainder of the sentence, and often set off by an intonation break. Because of these properties, left dislocation has been analyzed as an extraclausal phenomenon. Whether or not left dislocation can occur within subordinate clauses has been a matter of debate in the literature, but has never been checked against corpus data. This paper presents data from Avatime, a Kwa (Niger-Congo) language spoken in Ghana, showing that left dislocation occurs within subordinate clauses in spontaneous discourse. This poses a problem for the extraclausal analysis of left dislocation. I show that this problem can best be solved by assuming that Avatime allows the embedding of units larger than a clause. Keywords: Avatime; left dislocation; subordinate clause; complement clause
Published online: 5 March 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.105.03van
References (22)
References
Chafe, Wallace L. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed.), 27–55. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1997. ‘Topic’ constructions in some European languages and ‘connectedness’. In Materials on Left Dislocation [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 14], Elena Anagnostopoulou, van Riemsdijk, Henk & Zwarts, Frans (eds), 93–118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia. 2003. Subordination [Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory]. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph E. 1970. Root and Structure-Preserving Transformations. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Foley, William A. & Van Valin, Jr., Robert D. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 38]. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Geluykens, Ronald. 1992. From Discourse Process to Grammatical Construction: On Left-Dislocation in English [Studies in Discourse and Grammar 1]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1983. Topic continuity in spoken english. In Topic Continuity in Discourse [Typological Studies in Language 3], Talmy Givón (ed.), 343–363. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gregory, Michelle L. & Michaelis, Laura A. 2001. Topicalization and left-dislocation: A functional opposition revisited. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1665–1706. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K. 1975. Left dislocation and the role of topic comment structure in linguistic theory. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 18: 72–131.Google Scholar
Haiman, John. 1978. Conditionals are topics. Language 54(3): 564–589.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1968. Die Verbreitung und Gliederung der Togorestsprachen. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.Google Scholar
Hirschbühler, Paul. 1997. On the source of lefthand NPs in French. In Materials on Left Dislocation [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 14], Elena Anagnostopoulou, Henk van Riemsdijk & Frans Zwarts (eds), 55–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hooper, Joan B. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1973. On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4(4): 465–497.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 71]. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lord, Carol. 1993. Historical Change in Serial Verb Constructions [Typological Studies in Language 26]. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ogle, Richard. 1981. Redefining the scope of root transformations. Linguistics 19: 119–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prince, Ellen F. 1998. On the limits of syntax, with reference to left dislocation and topicalization. In The Limits of Syntax, Peter Culicover & Louise McNally (eds), 281–302. San Diego CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27: 53–94.Google Scholar
Shaer, Benjamin. 2009. German and English left-peripheral elements and the ‘orphan’ analysis of non-integration. In Dislocated Elements in Discourse. Syntactic, Semantic, and Pragmatic Perspectives, Benjamin Shaer, Philippa Cook, Werner Frey & Claudia Maienborn (eds), 366–397. New York NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. 2002. “Object complements” and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language 26(1): 125–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. 2005. Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Simmul, Carl Eric
2024. Information structure of converb constructions: Estonian -des, -mata and -maks constructions. Folia Linguistica 58:1 ► pp. 29 ff. DOI logo
Heine, Bernd, Tania Kuteva, Gunther Kaltenböck & Haiping Long
2015. On Some Correlations between Grammar and Brain Lateralization. In Oxford Handbook Topics in Linguistics, DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.