From the Left Dislocation problem to this volume's "solution"In recent years, Left Dislocation (LD), and the related notion of constituent order, received much attention from both generative and cognitive-functional perspectives. The former has generally focused on formal properties of LD, while the latter has focused on the range of discourse-pragmatic functions associated crosslinguistically with this type of structure. Although each framework continues to yield valuable insights into the nature of LD across languages, a typologically comprehensive explanation of the construction continues to elude linguists from both generative and cognitive-functional perspectives. A primary reason for this is found in the inherent limitations that have constrained each framework. Generativists, on the one hand have gradually acknowledged that it is nearly impossible to describe a LD construction adequately without taking its functional dimension into account. On the other hand, functional scholars pay more attention to the structure of LD and, especially, to its formal contrast with, or in relation to, other constructions (see, Andrason 2016c&d; Andrason and Visser 2016). As a result, the need for a more unified formal-functional approach to LD has become increasingly evident.Although the entanglement of form and function is acknowledged by most linguists (both from generative and functional schools) who study LD, there is another question that still divides the two schools: what constitutes the typological profile of the grammatical category of LD, both in terms of form and function? This question relates to a more general debate polarizing generative grammar and cognitive linguistics, viz. the issue of categorization. The two approaches understand categories differently. In general terms, generative linguists tend to advocate for a set of criteria that a construction must meet in order to qualify as an instance of a given category. In contrast, cognitive linguists argue that a category should rather be described and analyzed by making use of family-resemblance relationships. Although the prototype is
The Left Dislocation construction is a typologically universal phenomenon that has received detailed analysis, from both formal and functional perspectives, in a number of genetically and areally diverse languages. The present paper aims to provide a general overview of this crosslinguistic research with a concentration on: 1) the comparison of syntactico-semantic features of LD across languages, 2) the generalized cross-linguistic patterns and categories attested for LD, and 3) the explanations offered for LD in terms of its motivation and function in discourse. Accordingly, the paper will proceed in two parts. The first part will entail a brief survey of the syntactic and semantic attributes that have established LD as a typological category. In light of these attributes, linguists generally distinguish between two broad types of LD on the basis of particular syntactic patterns and constraints. Thus, a general description of these types is provided, along with a brief description of several less prototypical LD types. The second part of the paper will focus on the explanation of LD both in terms of the cognitive and contextual constraints that motivate its use in discourse, as well as the communicative goals and pragmatic effects achieved by the construction in particular contexts.
The primary aim of this paper is to provide a functional profile of verbal Left Dislocation (=LD) constructions in the Torah and Former Prophets (Genesis-2Kings). As a precursor, however, an abbreviated syntactico-semantic description of LD constructions within the aforementioned corpus is provided. This description consists of seven overlapping constructional schemas (i.e. construction types) that form a radial network around a typologically prototypical schema. Accordingly, each schematic type is more or less prototypical depending on its family resemblance (i.e. shared attributes) to the prototype. In light of this formal profile, and of the fact that grammatical constructions are equal parts form and function, the remainder and central focus of the paper will entail a detailed functional explanation of LD. This functional profile will consist of two complementary parts: 1) the central factors motivating the use of LD, and 2) the prototypical and non-prototypical discourse-pragmatic functions achieved by the construction in discourse. Together with the formal description, this functional explanation reveals a textured profile of the LD category, one that consists of a unified radial network of overlapping constructional types.Keywords: Left Dislocation, Information Structure, Discourse Pragmatics, Biblical Hebrew IntroductionDespite several studies 1 on the so-called Left-Dislocation (=LD) construction in Biblical Hebrew (=BH), linguists have failed to reach a consensus with respect to the construction's syntactic, semantic or discourse-pragmatic profile. As a result, a fresh investigation was undertaken (cf. Westbury 2014) with the intent of advancing a more unified explanation of verbal LD constructions in BH. Drawing on recent typological and theoretical research on the syntactic, semantic, and discourse-pragmatic attributes of LD constructions across languages, a set of criteria was developed for the identification and classification of LD constructions in BH.2 These criteria were then applied to the corpus of Gen-2 Kngs, where over 650 instances 1
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.