RETORIKA: Jurnal Ilmu Bahasa, Vol. 3, No. 2 Oktober 2017, Page 239-246 Available Online at https://ejournal.warmadewa.ac.id/index.php/jret P-ISSN: 2406-9019 E-ISSN: 2443-0668 Yosef Demon 1 I Wayan Pastika 2 Ketut Artawa 3 I Nyoman Udayana 4 Universitas Flores 1 Udayana University 2.3.4 yosefdemon_bataona@yahoo.com 1 Received: 11-10-2017 Revised: 17-10-2017 Accepted: 22-11-2017 How to Cite: Demon.Y. (2017) Pragmatic alternative construction (fronting, left dislocation, and topicaliza- tion) in Lamalera Dialect. RETORIKA: Jurnal Ilmu Bahasa 3(2). 239-246 DOI: 10.22225/jr.3.2.338.239-246 Abstract Left dislocation construction, fronting construction and topicalization construction are universal linguistic alternations. Nevertheless these three constructions have characteristics that are very different from one language to another. This dis- tinction depends on the language system of every language. This research data is obtained from the result of conversation between speakers of Lamaholot dialect of Lamalera. The result of data analysis proves that LDLL has three alternative constructions. The use of real language in everyday communication, this alternative construction ear has a gradative usage frequency. Left dislocation construction has the lowest usage frequency while the construction of precision and topicaliza- tion construction is significant. However, the construction of forging and parsing differed from one to another. Left dislo- cation construction is the advancement of peripheral arguments while topicalization construction is the construction of core argument prediction. The construction of topicalization is a passive-like construction (derivative construction). Keywords: Left dislocation construction, fronting construction and topicalization construction INTRODUCTION One of the methodologies of the system of languages is universally based on the degree of protrusion of the subject or topic (Li and Thompson, 1976: 457-489; Parera, 1991: 138). Li and Thompson declare that a language is cat- egorized as a language that accentuates the sub- ject if the most dominant clause of the basic structure is disclosed is the subject-predicate structure. Conversely, a language is said to be the language that accentuates the topic of hav- ing the most dominant clause of the basic clause is the topic-comments. Assumptions Li and Thompson imply the meaning that in languages that feature subjects also have topics and in languages that feature topics also have a subject. The languages that feature subjects like English, and German, lan- guages featuring topics such as Chinese and Lahu languages, languages featuring subjects and topics, such as Japanese and Korean, and languages does not feature subjects or topics, such as Tagalok and Illokano. The grouping of these languages is based on typological assumptions and demands that there are a number of well-researched languages grounded in the topic and that a number of well- researched languages also rely on the subject. This stipulates that it does not mean the topic and subject or subject and topic are not related at all. If observed it can be said that the real subject is a topic that grammaticalization. Most behavioral topics are similar to subject behav- ioral traits in a number of languages or cross- language (Li, 1976: 460-484). The division of languages into prominent or subject-focused topics should be based on a number of differentiating features. The features contained in the topical languages are (a) the topic is marked in the structure of birth, (b) the topic tends to control the choreality, (c) the rules of subject creation such as passivity are rarely found, (d) 'double subject' constructions the topic-oriented is the basic structure. The mention of 'double subjects' has a dis- tinctive position in languages that characterize topical projections. The syntactic construction structure in these types of languages is usually a clause that has two adjacent FNs. These two FNs occupy the left position of the verb or pre- verb, one of the FN carries the function of the topic and the other carries the subject function. If so, then this clause has two subjects or multi- ple subjects. The following will illustrate the example adopted from Li and Thompson in Ar- tawa (1998: 66; 2004: 99). 1a) Sakana wa tat ga oisili (Jepang) Copyright © 2017, RETORIKA: Jurnal Ilmu Bahasa