Is there an analysis of the construction "my friend she is nice."?

Question

I am researching syntactic idiosyncrasies of verbal communication and am interested in a construction in which a noun is reiterated with a pronoun. As children, we're all taught to avoid constructions that introduce a subject and follow it with a pronoun. But while this is forbidden in prescribed grammar, it is also ubiquitous in spoken English. >My friend Jane, **she** ate half the cake in one sitting. This example is a simple one, where the speaker places the pronoun "she" after "my friend." But this construction appears more frequently in complex forms. It's not hard to find examples in speeches by public figures. >They’re saying **the obstructionists**, how do we **get them to vote** for us? In this example quote, the message conveyed is as follows. >They're saying, how do we **get the obstructionists to vote** for us? This is not as simple as the example in the question, where the pronoun comes immediately after the noun. But the concept is the same, in that the noun is introduced first, and then referred to with a pronoun later. It seems similar to the difference between these sentences. >The obstructionists, **they will** vote for us. >The **obstructionists will** vote for us. Is there any term for this bit of verbal linguistic flair or any sort of analysis that explains why it is common in speech and taboo in prescriptive grammar?

Answer 1

Where as I don’t know the terminology to identify this sentence structure; I do feel I can provide insight for instances that it exists.

Spoken Word - As you mentioned we see this sentence structure occur often verbally.

a) Origin Language

Part of this I feel stems from English being a second language. Whenever you examine the sentence structure of other languages you’ll see that some (especially Romance languages) will have an overly descriptive identity. For example: potato, English = potato, French = patate, or pomme de terre (apple of the earth). Also as we look at the sentence structure of Romance languages we see that they exist in the inverse.

b) Running Thoughts

Another part of this is the notion “think before you speak”. This notion exists, but is by no means standard practice in verbal exchanges. When a train of thought is being executed simultaneously to verbal exchange proper structure is quickly forgotten. This is why when we see politicians provide impromptu speeches this structure failure is apparent. Hence the examples of “the xyz group, a strong voting group in this community, holds a high stake in the nearing election” vs “the xyz group holds a high stake in the next election.” Verbosity/exaggerated description > Proper structure.

Writing Examples - Again I will disclose that I don’t know a proper terminology for this structure, but I hope these examples provide potential for further analysis.

A) Group Thought/identify

The example here being Ayn Rand’s ‘Anthem’ where the dialogue throughout holds an emphasis on group over individual in all instances. “We will go together to the place” vs “I will go here”.

B) Purple Prose

A quick google search led me to the phrase “purple prose”. Which is more in the context of over detailed writing, but I feel holds a parallel to your question.

I hope this helps in your examination of this topic. Sorry in advance for any typos as this was written on my iPhone. Please feel free to message for further discussion of this.