RADIAL CATEGORIES IN SYNTAX: NON-RESUMPTIVE LEFT DISLOCATION IN ARUSA

Alexander Andrason,

Michael Karani

Abstrakt

This paper discusses the phenomenon of L(eft) D(islocation) in Arusa – a southern variety of Maasai – and, in particular, the presence of resumption in LD constructions. With respect to resumption, Arusa allows for two types of LD. In most cases, a non-resumptive type of LD is used. This variant is obligatory if a possible resumptive element refers to an argument of the verb of the matrix clause (i.e. subject, direct and indirect objects and applied objects). The resumptive type, which is significantly less frequent, appears only if the dislocate corresponds to an adjunct in the matrix clause. The pervasiveness of the non-resumptive LD stems from the ungrammaticality of overt independent pronominal arguments in most positions in Arusa. As a result, resumption cannot be viewed as a decisive feature for the classification of a construction as LD, and its lack as a sufficient reason to propose a different category. Rather, LD should be viewed as a radial category containing both constructions that match the LD prototype and structures that are more remote from the exemplar.

Słowa kluczowe: cognitive linguistics, Left Dislocation, resumption, prototypes, radial categories
References

Andrason A. 2016. To resume or not to resume: A note on resumption in left dislocation constructions in Polish and its relevance for Biblical Hebrew. – Andrason A., Westbury J. (eds.). Left Dislocation. Special Issue of SPIL 50. Stellenbosch: 185–199.

Caponigro I. 2003. Unbalanced coordination in Maasai. – UCLA Working Papers in Lin­guistics 9: 1–16.

Chafe W. 1976. Giveness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. – CH. Li (ed.). Subject and Topic. New York: 22–25.

Carstens V., Shoaff C. 2015. D-to-C and VSO/SVO alternation in Kisongo Maasai: Evidence from relative clauses. [coral.missouri.edu/docs/maasai/GlowAbsNonAnon.pdf].

Cinque G. 1983/1997. ‘Topic’ constructions in some European languages and ‘connectedness’. – Anagnostopoulou E., van Riemsdijk H., Zwarts F. (eds.). Materials on Left Dislocation. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: 93–118.

Duszak A. 1984. Topical sentence positions in English and Polish. – Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 18: 55–70.

Hamaya M. 1997. Vowel harmony in Maasai. – Linguistics 607: 1–30.

Janda L. 2015. Cognitive linguistics in the year 2015. – Cognitive Semantics 1: 131–154.

Karani M. 2013. The Arusa verb system. [MA Diss., University of Dar es Salaam].

Lambrecht K. 2001. Dislocations. – Haspelmath M. (ed.). Language Typology and Language Universals. Berlin: 1050–1078.

Lamoureaux S. 2004. Applicative construction in Maasai. [MA Diss., University of Oregon].

Lewis M.P. (ed.). 2009. Ethnologue. Languages of the world. [16th edition]. Dallas.

LoT. 2009. Atlas ya Lugha za Tanzania. Dar es Salaam.

Payne D. 1995. Verb initial languages and information order. – Downing P., Noonan M. (eds.). Word order in discourse. Amsterdam: 449–485.

Scarborough S. 2014. Accounting for null arguments: Pronoun dropping in Maa. [Talk at the 45th Annual Conference on African Linguistics. April 19, 2014, the University of Kansas].

Tucker A.N., Mpaayei J. 1955. A grammar of Maasai with vocabulary. New York.

Vossen R. 1988. Towards a comparative study of the Maasai dialects of Kenya and Tanzania. [Translated by Marion Frank]. Hamburg.

Westbury J. 2014. Left Dislocation in Biblical Hebrew: A cognitive linguistic account. [PhD Diss., Stellenbosch University].

Westbury J. 2015. Left Dislocation in Biblical Hebrew: Towards a comprehensive syntactico-semantic and discourse-pragmatic profile. [Talk presented at the SBL Conference 2015].