Defining Left-Dislocation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
chapter 2 Defining Left-Dislocation 2.1 Syntactic and Pragmatic Aspects of Left-Dislocation in Latin In this section, I present the syntactic definition for left-dislocation in Latin. This is followed by an exposition of the pragmatic framework that will be used in the analysis of this book. I then take a closer look on Latin relative clause syntax and its implications for Latin left-dislocation in section 2.2. Left-dislocation is a sentence structure in which a referential constituent that could function as an argument or adjunct within the predicate-argument structure of the clause occurs outside the left-peripheral boundaries of the clause containing the predicate. This dislocated constituent is prototypically followed by a grammatically complete clause, in which a co-referential pro- nominal element typically occurs.This pronominal element represents the role of the referent of the dislocated phrase as an argument or adjunct of the pred- icate (Lambrecht 1994: 182; Lambrecht 2001: 1050; Westbury 2014: 98).1 The following four attributes have been used to define prototypical left- dislocation (Lambrecht 2001:1050, modified in Westbury 2014: 101):2 1. The extra-clausal position of a constituent preceding the matrix clause. 2. A possible canonical intra-clausal position for the dislocated constituent within the matrix clause. 3. Anaphoric co-indexation between the dislocated constituent and an overt pronoun within the matrix clause. 4. A separate intonation contour for the dislocated constituent. A Latin example of a prototypical left-dislocation is (1): (1) Epidamniensis ill’ quem dudum dixeram geminum illum puerum qui surrupuit alterum, ei liberorum nisi diuitiae nil erat Plaut. Men. 57–59 1 For a convenient summary of earlier approaches, see Westbury (2014). 2 Lambrecht’s (2001) definition covers right-dislocation as well. Lambrecht (2001) uses the term TOP to refer to left-dislocation and ANTITOP to refer to right-dislocation. However, I shall not use Lambrecht’s term TOP as an equivalent to LD, as I do not accept Lambrecht’s view on topic being the only possible function of LD. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004357464_003 This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.Hilla Halla-aho - 9789004357464 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 07:22:44AM via free access 22 chapter 2 ‘That man from Epidamnus I was talking about a moment ago, the man who kidnapped that other twin, he had no children except for his wealth.’ In this example, Epidamniensis ille is the dislocated constituent. This con- stituent has a possible intra-clausal position in the matrix clause, because Epi- damniensis ille could, in principle, be adjoined to erat to produce the possessive dative construction. In the matrix clause, ei liberorum nisi diuitiae nil erat, we find the co-indexed anaphoric pronoun ei, which represents the role of the dislocated element as an argument of the verb. In the Latin evidence, we do not possess any direct evidence of intonation or prosody, so we must leave the fourth attribute out of the discussion. The first attribute is the necessary condition that must be met for the con- struction to qualify as LD (Lambrecht 2001: 1050). In other words, the dislocated constituent must be optional with respect to the predicate argument structure of the clause: even without the dislocated constituent, the remaining matrix clause should retain its well-formedness (Lambrecht 2001: 1052 and 1065; West- bury 2014: 222). The extra-clausal status of the dislocated element is also shown by the presence of a co-indexed element within the matrix clause (Westbury 2014: 111). If an anaphoric pronoun in the matrix clause has the same function as the dislocated constituent (for example, the direct object), the dislocated constituent would necessarily be outside the clause, since the verb cannot have two co-referent objects. Case disagreement between the dislocated constituent and its function in the main clause is further proof for the extra-clausal status (Westbury 2014: 116).3 The second attribute means that, in theory, the dislocated constituent would be able to occupy a position inside the clause and be a part of its structure, including compatibility with the selection criteria of the main clause verb. If the third criterion (the co-indexed pronoun) is fulfilled, the second attribute is naturally fulfilled, also because the presence of a co-indexed anaphoric guaran- tees that the dislocated constituent could occupy a position inside the clause. Cross-linguistically, we find dislocated constituents that are not co-referent with an element in the matrix clause and, hence, do not fulfil the second cri- terion. These are called unlinked topics in Lambrecht (2001: 1058–1059).4 Such dislocations function as framing devices that constrain the interpretation of the following proposition to a certain semantic domain. The republican Latin 3 For further discussion on determining the extra-clausal position of LD, see Westbury (2014: 110–116). 4 The same point is made in Dik (1997: 389–390). They are called ‘non-resumptive LDs’ in West- bury (2014: 105–107, 241–250). Hilla Halla-aho - 9789004357464 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 07:22:44AM via free access defining left-dislocation 23 examples, for the most part, possess the second attribute (possible position of the dislocated constituent within the main clause), but there are occasional examples of unlinked topics in Latin (see chapters 4 and 5 for examples). The definition of left-dislocation presented here agrees in essential respects with the concept of the Theme constituent in the Functional Grammar frame- work. It is defined by Pinkster (1990: 37) as follows: ‘By a constituent with the pragmatic function Theme we understand a constituent which does not form part of the predication, but precedes it and creates, as it were, a kind of frame- work within which the predication is to be interpreted.’5 A Theme constituent, too, can be anaphorically resumed in the following predication, but, just as in LD, this is optional. Theme constituents also include constructions where the Theme constituent is not a member of the following predication (unlinked top- ics). In this book, I have used the term left-dislocation, but the two concepts are, in fact, very close to each other, and the term Theme constituent could have been used here equally well. According to Hoffmann (1989: 188), Theme constituents in Latin can be divided into five categories according to their formal properties: i) noun phrases, ii) prepositional phrases, iii) relative clauses, iv) subordinate clauses with quod and v) infinitive constructions. The category ‘prepositional phrases’ here means predominantly constructions with de + ablative. Of these five cate- gories, it is mainly the first group (noun phrases) that falls into the scope of this study. However, as will be shown, the demarcation between noun phrases and relative clauses is not always clear-cut, so relative clauses will also be included to some extent in my discussion. In addition, there are examples of infinitive constructions, though these are limited in number and distribution. Categories ii) and iv) are excluded from this study (see, above, section 1.5 for examples of these). The term Theme constituent was originally coined by Dik (1978), who in- tended the term to make explicit and highlight his departure from the then- dominant transformational grammar theory, whereby this phenomenon im- plied a structural process of ‘dislocation’. According to this theory, the initial element was extracted from its proper place in the clause and placed in a left-dislocated position.6 However, more recently, the term left-dislocation has been used quite generally without any connection to transformational gram- mar theory. 5 See Pinkster (forthc. chapter 22). 6 In Dik (1997), Theme constituents are described as part of the more inclusive group Extra- Clausal Constituents (ECCs). Hilla Halla-aho - 9789004357464 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 07:22:44AM via free access 24 chapter 2 Latin belongs to those languages that allow for null-instantiation of argu- ments (‘ellipsis’; for examples from other such languages, see Lambrecht 2001: 1056; Dik 1997: 395). This means that in the Latin material, there are several instances without an overt anaphoric element in the matrix clause. Thus, not all Latin examples fulfil the third criterion (presence of a co-referent element in the matrix clause), even when the dislocated element could occupy a place in the following clause. The implication of the unconstrained use of null- instantiation of arguments (ellipsis) is that, in Latin, it is not possible to identify LDs without an anaphoric element by syntactic criteria and tell them apart from fronted (but clause-internal) topics, if the dislocated constituent and the reference in the matrix clause agree in grammatical case.7 Latin is here simi- lar to, e.g., Italian. The absence of spoken data and, hence, information about prosody, means that this distinction is completely beyond our reach, though there are instances where an interpretation of LD is attractive—e.g., Plaut. Asin. 444 scyphos quos utendos dedi Philodamo rettulitne (sc., rettulitne eos)?; Cato Agr. 109 uinumasperumquoderit,leneetsuauesiuolesfacere,sicfacito (sc., sic id facito).8 This means that we will not have in the Latin data instances with- out an overt anaphoric expression (like the Italian example 5e I Romani, sono pazzi, in Lambrecht 2001: 1051) where the anaphoric expression would agree in case with the dislocated constituent. On the other hand, in Latin, we have examples of null anaphora in LD when there is case disagreement between the dislocated constituent and the miss- ing anaphora. This is because Latin, unlike several other languages, allows for a rather free use of null anaphora in various functions. Lambrecht (2001: 1057) provides examples of null anaphora of a direct object in French and Por- tuguese.