Left dislocation and subordination in Avatime (Kwa)
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
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cristofaro, Sonia. 2003. Subordination [Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory]. Oxford: OUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Emonds, Joseph E. 1970. Root and Structure-Preserving Transformations. PhD dissertation, MIT.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Foley, William A. & Van Valin, Jr., Robert D. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 38]. Cambridge: CUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gregory, Michelle L. & Michaelis, Laura A. 2001. Topicalization and left-dislocation: A functional opposition revisited. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1665–1706. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haiman, John. 1978. Conditionals are topics. Language 54(3): 564–589.![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heine, Bernd. 1968. Die Verbreitung und Gliederung der Togorestsprachen. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hooper, Joan B. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1973. On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4(4): 465–497.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ogle, Richard. 1981. Redefining the scope of root transformations. Linguistics 19: 119–146. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27: 53–94.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. 2005. Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Cambridge: CUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
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](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
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.