[LFG] position for local discourse function

[Dag Trygve Truslew Haug]

Hi Mary,

Tsez is described that way by Polinsky and Potsdam, Long-distance
agreement and topic in Tsez, NLLT 19, p. 599-600, with examples (36) and
(37).

Dag



On Mon, 2015-05-18 at 13:52 +0000, George Aaron Broadwell wrote:
> Hi Mary,
> 
> I think San Dionisio Ocotepec Zapotec has this kind of discourse
> position.  I will look for the ms of a paper on this and send it to
> you.
> 
> 
> Aaron
> P.S.  Unfortunately I am about to get on an airplane, so I'll have to
> look for it when I get home...
> 
> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 8:39 AM Mary Dalrymple
> <mary.dalrymple at ling-phil.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>         
>         Does anyone know of a language that has a specifier position
>         where any grammatical function in the clause (but, crucially,
>         not a subordinate clause) can appear, as long as it has a
>         discourse function like TOPIC or FOCUS?   If we assume that
>         information structure roles are represented as TOPIC or FOCUS
>         at f-structure, the relevant specifier node would have an
>         annotation that looks like this, where GF stands for any
>         grammatical function (SUBJ, OBJ, etc.):
>         
>         (^ TOPIC) = v
>         (^ GF) = v
>         
>         That is, the phrase would be an information structure TOPIC,
>         and it would also bear some grammatical function GF in the
>         same clause, but it does not license an unbounded dependency
>         (GF* is not allowed) -- it must bear a grammatical function in
>         the same clause, not a lower clause.
>         
>         Thanks!
>         
>          - Mary
>         _______________________________________________
>         LFG mailing list
>         LFG at listserv.linguistlist.org
>         http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lfg
> _______________________________________________
> LFG mailing list
> LFG at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lfg