Topicalization refers to the sentence-initial placement of constituents other than the subject and is often listed as a non-canonical construction [cf. Ward, Gregory, Betty J. Birner and Rodney Huddleston (2002). “Information Packaging.” Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum, eds. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1363–1447.]. In this paper, tokens of topicalization in the direct conversations in the International Corpus of English for Hong Kong and India and, for comparison, Great Britain are analysed. In order to find out if topicalization is a contact-induced feature, typological profiles with regard to topic-prominence [Li, Charles N. and Sandra A. Thompson (1976). “Subject and Topic: A New Typology of Language.” Charles N. Li, ed. Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, 457–489.] are created for three Indo-Aryan, three Dravidian and two Sinitic languages. I suggest that the low frequencies of topicalization in Hong Kong English and the high frequencies of topicalization in Indian English are primarily due to differences in intensity of contact [Thomason, Sarah G. (2001). Language Contact. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.] and variety development [Schneider, Edgar W. (2007). Postcolonial English. Varieties Around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.]. Typological interference at the level of information structure is assumed to only come to the fore in further developed varieties and after prolonged contact.

The emergence of grammatical norms in postcolonial varieties of English has been argued to manifest itself in quantitative preferences rather than in categorical distinctions (cf. Schneider 2007: 46). Several studies on Indian English, however, have shown that this South Asian variety has developed innovative uses, i.e. marked qualitative differences, for the additive focus marker also and the restrictive focus markers only and itself as presentational focus markers (Bhatt 2000, Lange 2007, Balasubramanian 2009), e.g. Since 7 am itself, schoolchildren started to reach the venue smartly dressed and armed with their queries and waited patiently for more than two hours for the programme to begin. (IN_TI_38032) Number-related mismatches in agreement between the antecedent in plural and the focus marker in singular have also been attested. This structural phenomenon may be indicative of a grammaticalization process of the focus marker itself to an invariant focus particle as illustrated in the following example. He said the temporary peace achieved by leaders of the country was a victory for the Sri Lankan Security Forces itself as it was gained by the Security Forces at the expense of their lives. (LK_DN_2004-07-02) The present study is concerned with variation and convergence in the use of focus marking with itself in South Asian Englishes, i.e. Bangladeshi English, Indian English, Maldivian English, Nepali English, Pakistani English and Sri Lankan English. On the basis of the South Asian varieties of English (SAVE) corpus, an 18-million word web-based newspaper corpus featuring acrolectal language use of the varieties under scrutiny (cf. Bernaisch et al. 2011), we report on the pervasiveness of (presentational) focus marking with itself. Although the novel usage of itself as illustrated above certainly represents a feature of South Asian English, there is a clear pattern characterised by unity and diversity with regard to the individual varieties of English in South Asia.Despite the pan-South Asian presence of presentational itself, quantity, grammaticalization processes and structural combinability provide grounds to argue that presentational itself is more firmly rooted in some South Asian varieties of English (e.g. Indian English and Sri Lankan English) than in others (Bangladeshi English or Maldivian English).

The emergence of grammatical norms in postcolonial varieties of English has been argued to manifest itself in quantitative preferences rather than in categorical distinctions (cf. Schneider 2007: 46). Several studies on Indian English, however, have shown that this South Asian variety has developed innovative uses, i.e. marked qualitative differences, for the additive focus marker also and the restrictive focus markers only and itself as presentational focus markers (Bhatt 2000, Lange 2007, Balasubramanian 2009), e.g. Since 7 am itself, schoolchildren started to reach the venue smartly dressed and armed with their queries and waited patiently for more than two hours for the programme to begin. (IN_TI_38032) Number-related mismatches in agreement between the antecedent in plural and the focus marker in singular have also been attested. This structural phenomenon may be indicative of a grammaticalization process of the focus marker itself to an invariant focus particle as illustrated in the following example. He said the temporary peace achieved by leaders of the country was a victory for the Sri Lankan Security Forces itself as it was gained by the Security Forces at the expense of their lives. (LK_DN_2004-07-02) The present study is concerned with variation and convergence in the use of focus marking with itself in South Asian Englishes, i.e. Bangladeshi English, Indian English, Maldivian English, Nepali English, Pakistani English and Sri Lankan English. On the basis of the South Asian varieties of English (SAVE) corpus, an 18-million word web-based newspaper corpus featuring acrolectal language use of the varieties under scrutiny (cf. Bernaisch et al. 2011), we report on the pervasiveness of (presentational) focus marking with itself. Although the novel usage of itself as illustrated above certainly represents a feature of South Asian English, there is a clear pattern characterised by unity and diversity with regard to the individual varieties of English in South Asia.Despite the pan-South Asian presence of presentational itself, quantity, grammaticalization processes and structural combinability provide grounds to argue that presentational itself is more firmly rooted in some South Asian varieties of English (e.g. Indian English and Sri Lankan English) than in others (Bangladeshi English or Maldivian English).

Diese Dissertation untersucht die Syntax nichtkanonischer Subjekte und Subjektpositionen - insbesondere zwei Phänomene: Lokativinversion (LI) in Englisch, Französisch, Italienisch und Hebräisch; und Verbdrittverletzungen der Verbzweitregel (V2) in Kiezdeutsch - eine urbane Kontaktvarietät des Deutschen. In LI besetzt eine Lokativ-XP die präverbale Stelle, aber das kanonische DP-Subjekt in Nominativ taucht postverbal auf. Sprachübergreifend vergleiche ich a) die Verteilung unterschiedlicher Null- und overten Argumente in LI und b) die Verfügbarkeit von LI in Matrix- und Nebensätzen. Die zweite Fallstudie befasst sich mit kiezdeutschen V2-Verletzungen, denn sie folgen einer regelmäßigen Reihenfolge: [Rahmensetzer > Subjekt > finites Verb]; dies ist bemerkenswert aufgrund der Verletzung der ansonsten strengen Verbzweitregel und auch, weil es auf die Innovation einer Art Subjektposition hindeutet, die im Standarddeutschen fehlt. Anhand einer Korpusstudie komme ich zu der Erkenntnis, dass die scheinbare Subjektvoraussetzung auch für resumptive V3-Dislozierungsphänomene gilt. Dennoch wird gezeigt, dass die Subjektvoraussetzung mit dem nominativischen DP-Subjekten verbundenen EPP nicht ganz übereinstimmt. Ich entwickele eine Theorie von Subjektvoraussetzungen, die sowohl die Breite der untersuchten Variation in LI als auch die An/Abwesenheit von Subjektvorausetzungen im Vorfeld bei V3-Sätzen im Standarddeutschen und Kiezdeutschen erklären kann. Schließlich lassen sich diese Phänomene durch unterschiedliche Verteilungen und Vererbungsoperationen von D-, ϕ- und informationsstrukturellen δ-Merkmalen (cf. Miyagawa 2017) zwischen dem Phasenkopf C und T erklären. Die Anwesenheit nichtkanonischer Subjekte in LI und kanonischer Subjekte in einer nichtkanonischen Subjektposition im Kiezdeutschen werden durch Variation in der Verteilung eines für das Prädikatssubjekt spezifizierten δ-Merkmal abgeleitet. Dieses Merkmal ist aber unabhänging von den üblichen EPP-Voraussetzungen. / This dissertation addresses syntactic structures involving non-canonical subjects and non-canonical subject positions, investigating two phenomena: Locative Inversion (LI) in English, French, Italian, and Hebrew; and verb-third violations of the verb-second (V2) rule in Kiezdeutsch, an urban contact variety of German. In LI a spatio-deictic XP appears in the preverbal canonical subject position, while the canonical nominative subject DP surfaces postverbally. I compare the distribution of different covert and overt arguments participating in LI and the availability of LI in embedded and matrix contexts crosslinguistically. The second case study concentrates on Kiezdeutsch V2 violations, as they follow a regular order of [frame-setting adverb > Subject > finite verb]; this is remarkable because it both violates an otherwise strict V2 requirement and also indicates the innovation of a subject position lacking in Standard German. I carry out a corpus study and find that an apparent subject requirement extends to other verb-third resumptive-dislocation phenomena, yet we cannot understand this requirement in the sense of an EPP position associated with nominative DP subjects. From a theoretical perspective, this dissertation develops a theory of subject requirements capable of accounting for the breadth of investigated crosslinguistic variation in LI and the presence or absence of a high clausal subject requirement in Kiezdeutsch V2-violations and more standard varieties of German. Ultimately, I make use of finite differences across C and T in the distribution of D, ϕ, and discourse-related δ-features (cf. Miyagawa 2017) via different inheritance options from the phase head. The presence of non-canonical subjects in LI and the presence of canonical subjects in a seemingly non-canonical subject position in Kiezdeutsch are both derivable via variation in the placement of a δ-feature with a specification for Subject of Predication orthogonal to typical EPP requirements.