Postposed referents or just afterthoughts?

[David Kaufman]

I'm presenting a paper on Biloxi: An Analysis of Some Particles and Clitics in Biloxi, or some title of that nature.
   
  Dave

Bryan Gordon <linguista at gmail.com> wrote:
  I'm sure we're all looking forward to MALC. I'm preparing a handout to
my presentation there, which concerns the problem of postposed
referents in Ponca and Omaha. Since the assumed canonical order is
SOV, of course, any postposed referent begs the question: "Is this a
part of the sentence, or an afterthought?" Erkü in her 1983
dissertation on Turkish claimed that given/activated postposed
referents are intrasentential while non-activated referents are
afterthoughts. This can be tested empirically by looking at prosody,
but unfortunately my data has no prosodic information (you can all
hazard a guess why).

I think Erkü's proposal makes sense for OP, and I remember reading
some sort of discussion of OVS and SVO word order in OP before in
which the same question was raised. Can anyone remind me of where I
might have read that? I think it would have been one of Rudin's
papers.

- Bryan James Gordon

PS:
Who all is presenting Siouan stuff at MALC?

PPS:
If anyone will be in Boulder the first weekend of October, feel free
to give me a call: I'm there for CLASP. 612 239 7094


       
---------------------------------
Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story.
 Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20070925/7aeee6c0/attachment.htm>