“Free” Word Order in Slovenian
Adrian Stegovec and Tatjana Marvin
[email protected]
[email protected]
University of Ljubljana
It has been frequently argued that Slavic languages allow optional scrambling of arguments (for the relevant discussion see: Bailyn (2001); Bošković (2004); Bailyn (2005);
Bošković (2009)). We contribute to this discussion by analyzing Slovenian in light of
the claim from Bošković (2009), that scrambling is frequently used as an umbrella term
for a number of transformational phenomena, and that not all scrambling is semantically vacuous “Japanese-style scrambling”. We further develop on this idea by following
more precise definitions of topics and foci (Neeleman, Titov, van de Koot, and Vermeulen
2011; Živanović 2007) and showing that supposed instances of scrambling in Slovenian
can either be attributed to one or the other, or to distinct base generated constructions.
Our presentation is structured as follows: 1. Narrow definitions of scrambling and
information-structure transformations are presented — along with their accompanying
syntactic and semantic behavior (1) — and tested on instances of argument displacement
typically believed to be semantically vacuous based on scope relations. The examples in
question (which cannot be presented in this abstract due to limited space) are shown to
be foci and topics, with predictable distribution, and most of all, neither optional nor
semantically vacuous.
(1)
Focus
Topic
type
new-info.
contrast
aboutness
contrast
position
right edge
rel. free
left edge
rel. free
stress
∅
X
∅
X
semantics
invokes alternatives
specific reading
associated words
le/samo (only),
največ (the most)
2nd pos. pa (but)
2. Word order variation in ditransitives with no additional overt changes as observed
in most Slavic languages is sometimes attributed to A-scrambling. We show it to be
better explained in terms of distinct base generated constructions. Building on Stegovec
(2012) and Marvin and Stegovec (2012), we show that in an information-structure neutral
environment only ‘Dat > Acc’ can receive high applicative (2a&b) or causative readings
(2c&d), while ‘Acc > Dat’ is the only variant that can appear with a restricted group
of verbs (2e&f). The problem of the seemingly free word order in ditransitives is thus
reduced to the same problem as dative alternation in English.
(2)
a.
b.
Bine
pošilja Zoji
pismo.
(low/high applicative)
BineNOM sending ZojaDAT letterACC
’Bine is sending sending Zoja a letter.’/’Bine is sending a letter for Zoja.’
Bine
pošilja pismo
Zoji.
(low/*high applicative)
BineNOM sending letterACC ZojaDAT
’Bine is sending a letter to Zoja.’
1
c.
Industrializacija je
prinesla Angliji
gospodarsko rast.
Industrialization AUX brought EnglandDAT [economic growthACC ]
’Industrialization provided England with economic growth.’
d. # Industrializacija je
prinesla gospodarsko rast
Angliji.
Industrialization AUX brought [economic growthACC ] EnglandDAT
e.
Učitelj
je
izpostavil otroke
nevarnosti.
TeacherNOM AUX exposed childrenACC dangerDAT
‘The teacher exposed the children to danger.’
f. # Učitelj
je
nevarnosti izpostavil otroke.
TeacherNOM AUX dangerDAT exposed childrenACC
3. The findings from above are combined, showing that information-structure based
displacement of arguments is a distinct process from ditransitive word order alternation.
When ditransitive constructions with specific inherent readings (high/low applicative:
(3a&b), causative reading: (3c)) undergo such displacements these readings are retained,
while with the reversed order of arguments in neutral environments they are not (2d).
(3)
a. Za denar sem
napisal e i esej
sošolcui . (high applicative)
for money AUX1SG wrote
essayACC classmateDAT
’It was for a classmate that I wrote the essay for money.’
b. Zastonj sem
dal e i svinčnik sošolcui .
(low applicative)
free
AUX1SG gave
pencilACC classmateDAT
’It was to a classmate that I gave the pencil for free.’
c. Industrializacija je
prinesla e i gospodarsko rast
Anglijii .
Industrialization AUX brought
[economic growthACC ] EnglandDAT
’It was England that industrialization provided with economic growth.’
Additionally, scope of focused constituents is shown to reconstruct to its in situ position (4), making it possible to use scope relations to identify the underlying position of
arguments regardless of their displacement.
(4)
a. Marko za denar napiše enemu sošolcu
vsako domačo nalogo.
Marko for money writes one/a classmateDAT every homeworkACC
‘Marko writes every homework for one/a classmate for money.’ ∃ > ∀, * ∀ > ∃
b. Marko za denar napiše e i vsako domačo nalogo enemu sošolcui .
Marko for money writes
every homeworkACC a/one classmateDAT
‘Marko writes every homework for money for a/one classmate.’ ∃ > ∀, * ∀ > ∃
References
Bailyn, J. F. (2001). On scrambling: A reply to Bošković and Takahashi. Linguistic
Inquiry 32, 635–658.
Bailyn, J. F. (2005). Free Word Order and Minimalism. In St. Petersburg State University
Linguistics Papers.
Bošković, Ž. (2004). Topicalization, Focalization, Lexical Insertion, and Scrambling.
Linguistic Inquiry 35 (4).
2
Bošković, Ž. (2009). Scrambling. In S. Kempgen, P. Kosta, T. Berger, and K. Gutschmidt
(Eds.), The Slavic Languages, pp. 714–725. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Marvin, T. and A. Stegovec (2012). On the syntax of ditransitive sentences in Slovenian.
Acta Linguistica Hungarica 59 (1–2), 177–203.
Neeleman, A., E. Titov, H. van de Koot, and R. Vermeulen (2011). A syntactic typology
of Topic, Focus and Contrast. Manustcript, UCL.
Stegovec, A. (2012). Ditransitives in Slovenian: Evidence for Two Separate Ditransitive
Constructions. BA Thesis, University of Ljubljana.
Živanović, S. (2007). Kvantifikacijski vidiki logične oblike v minimlistični teoriji jezika
[Quantificational aspects of LF]. Ph. D. thesis, Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za primerjalno in splošno jezikoslovje.
3