1979 [82]
Reflections on Ertl’s approach to Czech
word order
“Úvaha o Ertlově pojetí českého slovního pořádku” (Reflections on Ertl’s approach to Czech
word order). Sborník prací filozofické fakulty brněnské university A 27: 185–196. — In this
article Firbas addresses several FSP-related points raised in Vilém Mathesius’s critique
(Mathesius 1941) of a word order conception of Czech by Václav Ertl. The conception was
published in Gebauerova mluvnice česká pro školy střední a ústavy učitelské: II. Skladba
[Gebauer’s Czech grammar book for secondary schools and teaching institutions: Vol. II Syntax] in 1914. Mathesius’s criticism of Ertl’s word-order conception is toned down by Firbas
owing to the fact that Mathesius was unaware of Ertl’s other important contribution to the
study of word order called O postavení podmětu po členech úvodních [On the position of the
subject after introductory elements], which was published only three years later. While Firbas
essentially agrees with Mathesius that Ertl’s 1914 descriptions of word order phenomena
were too formal, he convincingly shows that Ertl’s 1917 view of word order is in fact truly
functional and almost fully compatible with the theory of functional sentence perspective.
For a number of years, Czechoslovak Anglicists have been drawing upon the
work of the country’s Slavists, including specialists in Czech, and reacting to
these stimuli by dealing with English-related issues either in contrast with Czech
or in the context of general linguistics. Therefore, it may not be unbecoming to
honour the anniversary of the Head of the Brno Department of Czech, Slavonic,
general, and comparative linguistics, prof. dr. Arnošt Lamprecht, DrSc., with
a reflection1 on the conception of Czech word order as proposed by the scholar
of the Czech language Václav Ertl. We shall deal with the function of lexis as
sentence elements, a topic close to the interests of the jubilarian (cf. Grepl –
Lamprecht 1959).
We wish to reflect on the critique of Ertl’s2 conception of Czech word order
as proposed by V. Mathesius in his lecture given at a meeting of Czechoslovak
secondary school teachers (Mathesius 1929, 1972)3 in Prague in 1929, and then
repeated almost verbatim in 1941 in his article “Basic functions of Czech word
order” (Mathesius 1941, 1947). We hope to prove that both Ertl’s and Mathesius’s ideas are still alive and worthy of newly awakened attention.
51
52
Reflection on Ertl’s conception of Czech word order
Mathesius summarizes his conception of Czech word order as follows,
“The plasticity of Czech word order arises from the fact that concrete word
order formations in Czech are not a result of an absolute routine dominance of
one factor, but the interplay of several factors, the most prevalent being functional sentence perspective” (1941.169; 1947.328; compare 1929.121; 1972.30).
Mathesius turns against Ertl’s interpretation of Czech word order as presented in Ertl’s Gebauerova mluvnice česká pro školy střední a ústavy učitelské, II.
Skladba, [Gebauer’s Czech grammar for secondary schools and teachers’ training
colleges] 5th ed., 1914 (Ertl 1914, §§ 551–558). Mathesius summarizes Ertl’s
conception as follows: “According to Ertl, standard word order is the word order
we usually find in an average calmly presented and context-independent simple
sentence; it is governed by rising stress in the Czech sentence, and the stress pertaining to the individual words in a sentence in compliance with their affiliation,
and forming a permanent quality of the individual categories of the sentence
elements. There are a number of deviations from this standard word order, which
leads to non-standard word order. The reasons for such non-standard word order
are either the newness or non-newness of the ideas represented through a given
sentence element, stress, emotion, pithiness, and the complexity of an utterance.”4
(Mathesius 1941.169–170; 1947.328–329; compare 1929.121; 1972.29–30.)
Mathesius characterizes his conception of Czech word order as an interpretation that tallies with J. Zubatý’s conception from 1901. In his review of
the book by E. Berneker Die Wortfolge in den slavischen Sprachen (Berneker
1900), Zubatý (1901) recalled “the importance of the so-called psychological
subject in Czech word order, which is the basis of an utterance” (Mathesius
1941.169; 1947.327). As Mathesius observes, Zubatý does not take the psychological predicate into account, but “it is clear that he assigns an important role
to the segmentation of a sentence into theme and rheme” (ib.). Mathesius notes
that when he criticized Ertl in 1929 and proposed his conception of the problem,
he was not aware of Zubatý’s review of Berneker’s book. Without knowing
about the review, he clearly and fully formulated ideas outlined by Zubatý and
based on the notions proposed by the group around Steinthal and Lazarus (ib.).
The main points of Mathesius’s critique of Ertl’s conception (Mathesius
1929.120–122; 1972.29–31; 1941.169–170, 172, 175–176, 179; 1947.328–329,
334, 340–342, 349) are as follows. In his conception of Czech word order, Ertl
overrates the grammatical factor, which according to him brings about standard word order. The grammatical factor causes the same sentence elements to
appear in the same position within a sentence. From this point of view, Czech
word order seems to be rather stable and routine, and its variation originates
only in the numerous deviations from the standard (i.e. common) word order.
Ertl approaches Czech word order not from the functional but from the formal
point of view, and he arranges the word order factors in the incorrect hierarchization. Thus, the factor stated by Ertl as one of the causes for the non-standard
Reflection on Ertl’s conception of Czech word order
Czech word order (newness or non-newness of ideas) is in fact the main factor
in Czech word order. Mathesius views the details of Ertl’s conception as comprehensible and almost complete, but he sees the basic conception as faulty and
incorrect (cf. Mathesius 1961.180; 1975.154).
Let us consider the points of Mathesius’s critique one by one. First, we shall
look at the question of the main factor in Czech word order. Here we need to
remark on Ertl’s highly relevant article “O postavení podmětu po členech úvodních” [On the position of the subject after introductory elements] in Naše řeč I,
19175, which Mathesius does not mention in his review, although it is an article
of the utmost importance when appraising Ertl’s approach to the concept of Czech
word order. We shall cite two passages that prove the relevance of the article.
The second extract represents the beginning of Ertl’s summary of research into
word order in the language of Palacký, the main topic of the article. Let us add that
Ertl (in another place) explicitly mentions that the conclusions of the research should
also contribute to “the understanding of Czech word order in general” (1917.77).
“It is in particular the significant attempt at a psychologically natural
order, i.e. an order which is in accordance with the order of ideas or groups of
ideas forming a thought. The order depends primarily on the fact that the idea
(or a group of ideas) that has already been formed in the mind of the speaker,
and which represents the theme of the thought, or its subject, is joined by a new
idea (or a group of ideas) which is the core of the thought, or its predicate. The
psychological predicate, which is the more important part of a thought, is pronounced with more stress than the psychological subject, which is usually already known and of less importance, and therefore pronounced with less stress.
Hence, when expressing ideas in a psychologically natural order, we place first
the sentence element (or sentence elements) representing the psychological
subject, and then we follow with the element (or elements) representing the
psychological predicate. At the same time, the sentence is pronounced with
rising rhythm of voice intensity. However, the psychological subject and psychological predicate do not always tally with the grammatical subject and predicate; when answering the question “What is your brother doing?” by saying
“My brother’s sleeping”, the new idea that enters the mind – the psychological predicate – is the word “sleeping”, which at the same time represents the
grammatical predicate. If, however, we answer the question “Who’s sleeping
there?” by saying “My brother’s sleeping there”, the psychological predicate
is the word “brother”, which is the grammatical subject. The psychologically
natural order can therefore be not only linear (logical) order, but also reversed
(inverted) order. What is decisive is whether the core of the thought, or the psychological predicate, is a grammatical predicate or a grammatical subject” (Ertl
1917.78–79; highlighted by Ertl).
“The word order of the language of Palacký seems to be free, but not
arbitrary; it is not governed by a fixed, schematic rule, but it follows certain
53
54
Reflection on Ertl’s conception of Czech word order
inner principles: it conforms mainly to the changeable content of a sentence (to
its psychological division), and at the same time it agrees with stylistic, rhythmic, and other rules. Other significant traits result from this basic feature” (Ertl
1917.208).
Here we should take note of another important factor. Ertl points out that
Czech word order does not follow a set and schematic rule. Similarly to Mathesius, in his article from 1917 Ertl does not view word order mechanically. He
quite undoubtedly views the psychological division – the functional perspective
– as the main word order factor. He explicitly states that the word order is “primarily and most importantly” governed by the psychological articulation, that
is functional sentence perspective! (See the cited extract 1917.208.) He considers this word order property to be fundamental (ib.).
Also worthy of attention is Ertl’s observation that a sentence element can
be foregrounded to gain importance. “What happens in this case is ... a sort of
inversion of the psychologically natural order...” (Ertl 1917.138). Ertl outlines here the relationship between two factors – functional sentence perspective
and emphatic utterance – which form the backbone of Czech word order. Later
on, Mathesius aptly described this situation when he wrote “Our formulation
summarizes these two factors in the sentence; Czech word order is primarily
governed by functional perspective with respect to a set of principles in the case
of non-emphatic language, and another set of principles in the case of emphatic
language,” (Mathesius 1941.175; 1947.342).
What follows from the words quoted above is that Ertl approaches Czech
word order in the same way as Zubatý. Moreover, he takes the psychological
predicate into consideration. Setting aside the psychological terminology, we
can claim that Ertl writes about the starting point/theme and the nucleus of an
utterance. For that matter, when Ertl explains the notion “psychological subject”,
he talks about “starting point”, and when he mentions “psychological predicate”,
he speaks about “nucleus”. In another place (112) he states that the psychological
predicate is a phrase expressing “the nucleus (novelty) proper of the sentence”.
It is clear that Mathesius was not familiar with Ertl’s article from 1917. Had
Mathesius known about the article, he would surely have not denied Ertl’s credit
for going further than Zubatý in his reflection on Czech word order, and for
recognizing the main factors in Czech word order. Therefore, if we take Ertl’s
article from 1917 into consideration, then what Mathesius stated about Zubatý’s
conception of Czech word order is even more true of Ertl’s conception.
Ertl’s article in Naše řeč (Ertl 1917) was published after Ertl’s account of
Gebauer’s Grammar (Ertl 1914). It therefore mirrors the development of Ertl’s
conception of Czech word order. What is surprising is that with regard to his
findings from 1917, Ertl did not amend or change his presentation of word order
in the later editions of the Grammar.6 Let us now turn our attention to what Ertl,
in his Grammar, calls common order.
Reflection on Ertl’s conception of Czech word order
If we retain Ertl’s terminology, we can in accordance with Grammar name
the following characteristic features of common word order: the subject precedes
the predicate (the finite verb); the verb precedes elements that develop it, while
determining expressions precede complementary elements; elements that carry
more important information lie after less important elements, e.g. the dative object
precedes the accusative object, the object precedes the complement, etc. (§ 556).
Let us add that L. Uhlířová’s (1969, 1972) statistical research and E. Benešová’s
(1968, 1971) studies on word order confirm that Ertl’s common word order is
indeed the most common Czech word order. Ertl connects common word order
with gradual intensification of sentence stress (§ 556). The gradual intensification
of stress is governed by a progressive rise in importance and significance of the
content (§ 552). This gradual rise corresponds to the tendency for the basic distribution of communicative dynamism (cf. Firbas, 1980), and it is in agreement with
Mathesius’s objective order, arranging sentence elements into the theme-rheme
order. Up to this point, Ertl explains common Czech word order in the same way
as Mathesius and those following in his footsteps.7
The problem is that in his presentation in Grammar, Ertl connects the importance of an expression with its sentential function. “The importance of an
expression is commonly governed by its function as a sentence constituent” (§
552). “Common word order is governed by sentence stress placed on individual
words (simple expressions) in a sentence with regard to their function” (see
§ 552.1). These solutions do not take into account the fact that what matters
are the semantic contents in the act of communication: it is this operation, not
grammatical rendering, that determines the importance of an expression. (The
grammatical rendering serves this function and submits to it.) Mathesius’s objection, in which he criticizes Ertl’s formal, non-functional approach, is fully
justified here.
The standpoint of grammatical rendering chosen by Ertl in his Grammar
to be the criterion to explain common Czech word order then overshadowed
the common denominator, which can be represented in Czech by the sentences
I udělali Jiříka králem a Zlatovlásku královnou, Nouze naučila Dalibora housti, Paleček běžel rovnou do zámku on the one hand, and by sentences Žil kdysi
v Čechách smavý rek, V jedné zemi bydlel rybář on the other hand.
The situation is this: in the sentences that fall within the second category,
V precedes S. Therefore, according to Ertl, these sentences represent a deviation from S–V order, which is a marked word order. The markedness is evoked
by the novelty of ideas, in this case by the novelty of the contents expressed
by the subjects. In the second type of sentence, subjects carry the message of
a sentence, they are the most important and the most significant and therefore
occupy the final position. What does this mean? It implies that sentences of the
second type – similarly to the first type of sentence – display a gradual rise in
importance and significance of content!
55
56
Reflection on Ertl’s conception of Czech word order
What follows from the above is that both types can be transferred to a common
denominator and considered as a realization of one word order tendency, that is
the tendency to arrange sentence elements with regard to – in Ertl’s terminology
– their rising content importance and significance. As convincingly presented
by Mathesius – and also by Ertl in 1917 – what matters here is the factor that in
Czech is applied in calmly pronounced, non-emphasized sentences as the main
word order factor. It is the factor that – as is commonly acknowledged today –
forms the Czech unmarked word order.
Here we approach the part of Ertl’s conception that elicited Mathesius’s
justified criticism. Hopefully, it is clear from Ertl’s later conception that the necessary corrections of his presentation in Grammar could have been taken from
“his own sources”. As Daneš noted, it is a pity that Ertl did not elaborate on the
thoughts which he presented in the article in 1917 (Daneš 1957.56).
To make the picture complete, let us state that in his article from 1917, Ertl
explains the second type (1917.110–113) in accordance with the conception presented in the article, which states that “psychologically natural order” (1917.78)
is the basic Czech word order. Let us cite Ertl’s words, “The psychologically
natural word order can be not only direct (logical) word order, but also reversed
(inverted) order, depending on whether the psychological predicate is formed by
the grammatical predicate or the grammatical subject.” (1917.79).
We wish to stress here that the present commentary does not aspire to refute
the relationship between the character of sentence constituents and the function
of the semantic content of an utterance, i.e. on the level of functional sentence
perspective. Let us look at the present problem. For the purpose of our next
illustration we only need to focus on one of the possible sequences that realise
Ertl’s common word order, and that is the S–V–O order. We shall talk about context-independent order.8 It is in agreement with Ertl’s approach which holds that
common word order “usually appears in a simple, context-independent, calmly
uttered sentence” (§ 555.1a).
We can add that S–V–O order most commonly depicts (gives a form to)
a sequence of semantic contents agent–action–goal. As L. Uhlířová (1972) and
E. Benešová (1971) showed, in such a sequence S is most commonly the theme,
O the rheme and V has the function of a transition. Therefore, the S–V–O order
most commonly expresses rising communicative dynamism. Let us emphasise
again that the ascend of communicative dynamism is not governed by grammatical
form, but the character of depicted semantic contents and semantic relationships
between them, and context conditions under which the semantic contents work
in the act of communication.
Let us mention again that semantic contents, when context-dependent, display
the lowest degree of communicative dynamism, with no regard to the form they
employ and place they take. When context-independent, semantic contents display
degrees of communicative dynamism in accordance with their character either
Reflection on Ertl’s conception of Czech word order
completely independently of their position within a sentence (linear arrangement)
or in complete or partial dependence.
Let us further mention that it is useful to distinguish between a semantic
construction seen from the static point of view, i.e. with no regard to context and
the function played by the semantic construction in the act of communication, and
a semantic construction seen dynamically, i.e. with regard to the function that the
semantic construction fulfils when developing the message (compare Dokulil –
Daneš 1958.238). With regard to the way in which they develop communication,
context-independent semantic contents can be arranged according to their communicative dynamism in ascending sequence as follows: SCENE (time, place and causal
background, etc.) – EXISTENCE/APPEARANCE on the scene – PHENOMENON
existing, appearing on the scene – BEARER of quality – QUALITY – SPECIFICATION – FURTHER SPECIFICATION (Firbas 1975). Let us further mention that
the semantic content of a context-independent verb exceeds the semantic content
of a context-independent substantive in terms of communicative dynamism only
when the substantive expresses the scene (background) or a bearer of quality. Let
us stress that the – so far only experimental – scale of communicative dynamism,
as it appears in the functions of context-independent semantic contents in the act
of communication, is not a word order feature. The extent to which the word order
is realised on the scale (which can be called the basic dynamic semantic scale) is
determined by a number of word order formations created in accordance with the
word order system of a particular language.
Along the lines of what has been said here, we can interpret these contextindependent sentence structures: 1. (Nějaký) lovec zabil (nějakého) lva, 2. (Nějaký) lovec (nějakého) lva zabil, 3. (Nějakého) lva zabil (nějaký) lovec, 4. (Nějaký)
lev byl zabit nějakým lovcem. These are context-independent structures.
Semantic construction
(statically approached)
Grammatical form
Distribution of communicative dynamism
Function of the semantic
construction in the act
of communication
1. Nějaký lovec
agent
zabil
action
(nějakého) lva
goal
S
V
O
BEARER
QUALITY
SPECIFICATION
2. (Nějaký) lovec
agent
S
(nějakého) lva
goal
O
zabil
action
V
BEARER
SPECIFICATION
QUALITY
57
58
Reflection on Ertl’s conception of Czech word order
3. (Nějakého) lva
goal
zabil
action
(nějaký) lovec
agent
SPECIFICATION
QUALITY
BEARER
(Nějakého) lva
goal
zabil
action
(nějaký) lovec
agent
BEARER
QUALITY
SPECIFICATION
4. (Nějaký) lev
goal
byl zabit
action
nějakým lovcem
agent
BEARER
QUALITY
SPECIFICATION
In section 1 and 2 the expression nějakého lva will carry the highest degree
of communicative dynamism regardless of its position within the sentence. The
word order in section 2 shows that the distribution of communicative dynamism
was not quite so unusual in the early stages of the development of Czech. The
present interpretation is not negated by the fact that a speaker of today’s Czech
would most presumably consider the verb zabil to be the most dynamic one. The
preceding part of the sentence would in such a case be context-dependent. We
are, however, interested in context-independent sentence sections.
I believe that in ex. 3 the interplay of communicative means is not as
unequivocal as in exx. 1 and 2. It may be that in the given arrangement the
beginning of the sentence might assert itself – especially as a result of the
tendency towards the basic distribution of communicative dynamism in
Czech – as the place with the lowest degree of communicative dynamism. In
this case it would be necessary to understand the interplay in such a way that
the context-independent object expressing the goal of an action would carry more communicative dynamism than the verb – regardless of its position
within a sentence – as long as it does not precede a context-independent subject. Should such a situation occur, in written language it presents us with two
possible interpretations. It is worth mentioning that a corresponding English
translation in the case of the second interpretation would be the same as in ex.
4 – A lion was killed by a hunter.
In ex. 4 the interplay is quite unequivocal. The passive construction serves
as a special means to signal the degrees of communicative dynamism.
Reflection on Ertl’s conception of Czech word order
To understand how a sentence element works on the level of functional
sentence perspective, we need to understand the content it carries and allow for
the interplay of context with linearity and semantic construction. Let us now
consider the relationship between the verb and the object.
Comparison of English, German, and Czech showed that when it comes to
communicative dynamism, the context-independent object surpasses the verb,
regardless of its position within a sentence (Firbas 1959). Studies of prosodic
features of the verb and the object in an English sentence reached the same conclusion (Firbas 1969). There are cases that lie on the periphery of the language
system to which the present rule cannot be applied. However, such cases can be
explained from the point of view of the interplay of the communicative means.
Let us mention the comments on ex. 3, and explore one more type.
In sentences like A smile curled his lips/Ein Lächeln kräuselte seine Lippen,
the intonation centre will most presumably be on the subject A smile/Ein Lächeln
since it carries the highest degree of communicative dynamism. If we see the
object as context-dependent, then this is in compliance with the above stated
rule. However, we can explain even cases where the object is context-independent. The connection between the verb and the object metaphorically expresses
the appearance on the scene. The connection then loses the dynamism and introduces into the utterance the phenomenon expressed by the subject. From the
point of view of the functioning of semantic contents on the level of functional
sentence perspective, the above-described formations then fulfil the same role as
sentences A smile played on his lips/Ein Lächeln spielte um seinen Mund.
A smile agent S curled action V PHENOMENON APPEARANCE his lips
goal
O
SCENE
What follows from the above? We can assume that under certain conditions, which are partially well-known, partially requesting further clarifications,
partially possibly yet unknown, it is possible to connect sentence elements to
a higher or lower degree with a given function in functional sentence perspective.
We are dealing with congruence between functions (cf. e.g. Firbas 1979.53) on
the semantic, grammatical, and functional sentence perspective levels. (F. Daneš
uses the term “affinity” – cf. 1977.288.) Mathesius himself was interested in this
topic. Let us recall, e.g., his studies on the function of the subject in contemporary English (Mathesius 1924). Here we can say that Ertl was not completely
in the wrong when he attributed different levels of importance and significance
to the sentence element contents. He was aware of the fact that importance and
59
60
Reflection on Ertl’s conception of Czech word order
significance are not asserted under all circumstances. He knew about the influence of context, which prevents these features from always being applied
(§ 552.2). In his conception of common word order, Ertl points out that the
concept can be applied to context-independent sentences. If we take these facts
into account, we cannot claim that a certain sentence stress (and also content
importance and significance) presented “a certain constant category of sentence
elements” (Mathesius 1929.121; 1972.29–30; 1941.169–170; 1977.329).
Ertl correctly noticed that the grammatical subject is not usually thematic,
but rhematic in the case of verbs být, panovat, jevit se [be, prevail, seem] etc.
(1917.111), “as well as in situations when the grammatical predicate plays no
other role than to bring persons or things on the scene (in the case of verbs like
objeviti se, přijíti, státi se [appear, come, become] and other subjective verbs)”
(1917.112). Here Ertl noted how important is the role played in functional sentence perspective by verbs of existence and appearance on the scene (Hatcher
1956, Firbas 1957). Independently of Ertl, other research into the problem of
word order and functional sentence perspective in other languages has arrived
at the same conclusion (Hatcher 1956, Firbas 1957). Ertl is also right when he
claims that the subject is rhematic whenever “the content of the grammatical
predicate is known from the previous context” (ib.).
Let us further mention Ertl’s notion that a concrete verb “plays a subordinate
role in main clauses” because it is “predominantly a mere (unstressed) connection
between the two main parts of the psychologically divided sentence” (1917.208);
“it is a mere connection, a link between the psychological subject and the psychological predicate” (1917.113). Ertl’s position is essentially in agreement with
the opinion and the results of research carried out by Czechoslovak linguists who
consider the most common function of the verb from the viewpoint of functional
sentence perspective to be the transition function. We would, however, regard only
the temporal and modal exponents of a verb to be “a mere link” in cases when
they – except for the so-called second instance – function as the transition proper
between the thematic and non-thematic parts of a sentence. To specify, we need to
add that Ertl’s assessment of the function of a verb concerns only main clauses.
According to Ertl, from the point of view of functional sentence perspective,
a verb in a subordinate clause does not play such a subordinate role as in the
main clause. In a subordinate clause it “presumably forms a fully-fledged part of
the compound psychological predicate” (1917.137). I believe that Ertl does not
sufficiently account for this opinion. In essence, there is no difference between
the transitional function of a verb in the main clause and in the subordinate clause.
Ertl’s regard for the semantic meaning of a word deserves special attention and
appreciation. Ertl explicitly notes (1917.172) that when studying word order, we
need to consider meaning. Meaning is one of the phenomena that influence the word
order, “partially supporting the natural psychological order, partially disagreeing
with it” (ib.). Ertl anticipates a strong regard for the semantic construction as one
Reflection on Ertl’s conception of Czech word order
of the basic means of functional sentence perspective, a regard that contributes to
the development of Mathesius’s conception of functional sentence perspective. We
can say that Mathesius did not fully appreciate this aspect of Ertl’s contribution
to the study of Czech word order and functional sentence perspective.
Ertl comments on other problems that are topical in today’s research into
functional sentence perspective. Ertl’s importance and significance of sentence
elements needs to be seen from the point of view of the accomplishment of
the communicative goal, the communicative aim of the speaker, and the development of the utterance. The varied level of importance and significance
can therefore be interpreted as varied degrees of communicative dynamism.
It follows from Ertl’s words that the psychological predicate presents “a more
important element of an idea” than the psychological subject. Ertl does not exclude the possibility that the psychological subject is expressed via elements
which express unknown, that is new, thoughts. (In his view, this is not a frequent
case: it only occurs in isolated sentences. – 1917.19) A constant feature of the
psychological subject is that it expresses less important thoughts (1917.79, 100).
We shall now attempt to conclude the present reflections. It transpires that
Ertl contributed to the research into Czech word order and functional sentence
perspective more significantly than Mathesius’s rather harsh condemnation implies. The critique can be explained by the fact that Mathesius was unaware
of Ertl’s important article, which constitutes a noteworthy advance in Czechoslovak research into word order. Let us note, however, that Mathesius himself
– gallant as he was – spoke appreciatively about Ertl’s overall contribution to
Czech studies, and expressed the belief that Ertl’s work needs to be analysed
(Mathesius 1929.121; 1972.30; 1941.170; 1942.329). Our contribution has
aimed to respond to this appeal with at least a short reflection.
Translated by Markéta Johnová
Notes
The reflection develops some ideas proposed in February 1972 during a panel discussion
on functional sentence perspective at the Jazykovědné sdružení in Prague, and then during the
lecture “On Ertl’s conception of Czech word order” given at the Kruh moderních filologů in
Olomouc in February 1973.
2 On 12 February 1979, 50 years elapsed since this Czech linguist passed away.
3 We are citing from the article Mathesius 1947. The differences between the versions from
1947 and 1941 are indiscernible. The later version comprises sporadic minute changes in punctuation, or stylistics.
4 Let us state that Mathesius (1941, 1947) counts the following word order factors: the
moment of functional sentence perspective; emphasis; stress and dimensional rhythm; grammar;
coherence of sentence elements. Ertl’s word order factors (Ertl 1914) are as follows: the moment
of the syntactical functions of sentence elements, newness, or non-newness of thoughts, emphasis
and emotion, pithiness and complexity of expression, coherence of sentence elements.
5 Pointed out by F. Daneš (1957.55–56).
1
61
62
Reflection on Ertl’s conception of Czech word order
6
The 9th edition of Grammar (Ertl 1926), in the section on word order reflections, only
develops the passage on unstressed words in § 556 and brings a revised version of § 561 on the
coherence of sentence elements.
7
An overview of Czechoslovak research into functional sentence perspective can be seen in
an annotated bibliography of J. Firbas and E. Golková (Firbas – Golková 1975).
8
On the so-called basic instance level in the realm of the first instance level (compare Firbas
1959.51–53, 63; 1979.45–46).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Benešová, E. (1968). “O sémantickém charakteru českého slovosledu” [On the
semantic character of Czech word order], Slovo a slovesnost 29.34–41 (Prague).
Benešová, E. (1971). “Některé otázky aktuálního členění v češtině” [On some
issues of functional sentence perspective in Czech], Slavica Pragensia
13.179–198 (Prague).
Berneker, E. (1900). Die Wortfolge in den slavischen Sprachen (Berlin). (Cited
according to Zubatý 1901.129.)
Daneš, F. (1957). Intonace a věta ve spisovné češtině [Intonation and Sentence
in Standard Czech] (Prague).
Daneš, F. (1977). “K otázce větných členů” [On the issue of sentence elements],
Slovo a slovesnost 38.281–288 (Prague).
Dokulil, M. – Daneš, F. (1958). “K tzv. významové a mluvnické stavbě věty”
[On the so-called semantic and grammatical sentence structure], O vědeckém poznání současných jazyků, pp. 231–246 (Prague).
Ertl, V. (1914, 1926). See Gebauer, J. – Ertl, V.
Ertl, V. (1917). “O postavení podmětu po členech úvodních” [On the position of the subject after introductory elements], Naše řeč 1.33–38, 75–79,
109–114, 136–141, 172–177, 200–210 (Prague).
Firbas, J. (1957). “K otázce nezákladových podmětů v současné angličtině”
[On the problem of the non-thematic subjects in contemporary English],
Časopis pro moderní filologii 39.22–42, 165–73 (Prague).
Firbas, J. (1959). “Thoughts on the communicative function of the verb in English, German and Czech”, Brno Studies in English 1.39–68 (Prague).
Firbas, J. (1969). “On the prosodic features of the Modern English finite
verb-object combination as means of functional sentence perspective”,
Brno Studies in English 8. 49–59 (Brno).
Firbas, J. (1975). “On ‘existence/appearance on the scene’ in functional sentence perspective”, Prague Studies in English 16.47–70 (Prague).
Firbas, J. (1979). “A functional view of ‘ordo naturalis’”, Brno Studies in English 13. 29–59 (Brno).
Firbas, J. (1980). “K pojmu základního rozložení ‘výpovědní dynamičnosti’ ”
[On the concept of the basic distribution of communicative dynamism],
Otázky slovanské syntaxe IV (Brno).
Reflection on Ertl’s conception of Czech word order
Firbas, J. – Golková, E. (1975). An Analytical Bibliography of Czechoslovak
Studies in Functional Sentence Perspective (Brno).
Gebauer, J. – Ertl, V. (19145, 19269). Gebaurova mluvnice česká pro školy
střední a ústavy učitelské, II. Skladba [Gebauer’s Czech Grammar for Secondary Schools and Teachers’ Training Colleges, 2nd edition], newly compiled by V. Ertl (Prague).
Grepl, M. – Lamprecht, A. (1959). “K otázce syntaktické klasifikace slovních
druhů” [On the syntactic classification of word classes], Sborník prací filozofické fakulty brněnské univerzity A7.31–36 (Brno).
Hatcher, A. G. (1956). Theme and Underlying Question. Two Studies in Spanish Word Order, Supplement to Word 12 (Baltimore).
Mathesius, V. (1924). “O funkci podmětu v současné angličtině” [On the function of the subject in contemporary English], Časopis pro moderní filologii
10.244–248 (Praha). Reprint: V. Mathesius, Čeština a obecný jazykozpyt,
pp. 277–285 (Prague 1947).
Mathesius, V. (1929) “Funkční lingvistika” [Functional linguistics], Sborník
přednášek proslovených na Prvém sjezdu čs. profesorů filosofie, filologie
a historie v Praze 3.–7. dubna 1929, pp. 118–130. Reprint: Mathesius 1972.
Mathesius, V. (1941). “Základní funkce pořádku slov v češtině” [The basic
function of word order in Czech], Slovo a slovesnost 7.169–180 (Prague).
Reprint: Mathesius 1947; translated into Russian: Mathesius 1967.
Mathesius, V. (1947). “Základní funkce českého pořádku slov” [The basic function of Czech word order], in: V. Mathesius, Čeština a obecný jazykozpyt,
pp. 327–352 (Prague). (Compare Mathesius 1941, 1967.)
Mathesius, V. (1961). Obsahový rozbor současné angličtiny na základě obecně
lingvistickém [A Functional Analysis of Present-Day English on a General
Linguistic Basis], edited by J. Vachek (Prague).
Mathesius, V. (1967). “Osnovnaya funkciya poryadka slov v cheskom jazyke”,
Prazhskiy lingvisticheskiy kruzhok, edited by N. A. Kondrashov, 246–265
(Moscow). (Cf. Mathesius, 1941, 1947.)
Mathesius, V. (1972). “Funkční lingvistika” [Functional linguistics], Z klasického období pražské školy, ed. and commentary by J. Vachek, 27–39
(Prague). (Cf. Mathesius 1929.)
Mathesius, V. (1975). A Functional Analysis of Present-Day English on a General Linguistic Basis, transl. by L. Dušková, ed. by J. Vachek (Prague).
Uhlířová, L. (1969). “Vztah syntaktické funkce větného členu a jeho místa
ve větě” [Syntactic functions of sentence constituents and their positions
within the sentence], Slovo a slovesnost 30.358–370 (Prague).
Uhlířová, L. (1972). “On the quantitative analysis of clause and utterance in
Czech”, Prague Studies in Mathematical Linguistics 4.107–128 (Prague).
Zubatý, J. (1901). [Résumé of a book] E. Berneker, Die Wortfolge in den slavischen Sprachen, Listy filologické 28.129–134 (Prague).
63