Wortstellung und Bedeutung: Akten des 12. Linguistischen Kolloquiums, Pavia 1977, Bd. 1 3484103035, 9783484103030

Citation preview

Linguistische Arbeiten

6l

Herausgegeben von Herbert E. Brekle, Hans Jürgen Heringer, Christian Rohrer, Heinz Vater und Otmar Werner

Wortstellung und Bedeutung Akten des 12. Linguistischen Kolloquiums Pavia 1977 Band l Herausgegeben von Maria-Elisabeth Conte, Anna Giacalone Ramat und Paolo Ramat

Max Niemeyer Verlag Tübingen 1978

CIP-Kurztitelaufnahme der Deutschen Bibliothek Linguistisches Kolloquium (12, 1977, Pavia) Akten des 12. [Zwölften] Linguistischen Kolloquiums: Pavia 1977 / hrsg. von Maria-Elisabeth Conte . . . - Tübingen : Niemeyer. (Linguistische Arbeiten ; . . . ) NE: Conte, Maria-Elisabeth [Hrsg.] Bd. l -»Wortstellung und Bedeutung Wortstellung und Bedeutung / hrsg. von Maria-Elisabeth Conte . . . - 1. Aufl. Tübingen : Niemeyer, 1978. (Akten des Zwölften Linguistischen Kolloquiums ; Bd. 1) (Linguistische Arbeiten ;61) ISBN 3-484-10303-5 NE: Conte, Maria-Elisabeth [Hrsg.]

ISBN 3-484-10303-5 © Max Niemeyer Verlag Tübingen 1978 Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Ohne ausdrückliche Genehmigung des Verlages ist es auch nicht gestattet, dieses Buch oder Teile daraus auf photomechanischem Wege zu vervielfältigen. Printed in Germany

INHALTSVERZEICHNIS

Vorwort 1.

IX

WORTSTELLUNG UND TYPOLOGIE

L SZLO DEZSO: Towards a typology of theme and rheme: SOV languages 3 KLAUS-PETER LANGE: Problems with OV/VO word order . . 13 ELISABETTA FAVA: On subject. A contribution from child acquisition 23 JAN WIRRER: Natural text processing and word order . 35 GIULIA PETRACCO SICARDI: L'ordine delle parole come elemento di tradizione e di memorizzazione 47 NICOLE DELBECQUE: Spanish word order. Subject position. Discussion of some formal constraints 57 PAVAO ΤΕΚΑνίκί: L'indigene e 1'alloglotto nell'ordine delle parole di un idioma di frontiera: 1'istroromanzo 67 H. JOACHIM NEUHAUS: The structure of morphological families 79 2.

SYNTAX UND GENERATIVE THEORIE

HEINZ W. VIETHEN: On a not so perfectly argued description of the present and the present perfect in English 89 MARINA NESPOR: The syntax of gerunds in Italian . . . 1O3 GIORGIO GRAFFI: On Italian cleft sentences 113 PIERO CARACCIOLO: Sur 1' impersonnel. en Italien . . . 125 MARC VAN DE VELDE: Zur mehrfachen Vorfeldbesetzung im Deutschen 131 WOLFGANG GRASSL: On the simplicity criterion in linguistics 143 3.

SEMANTIK

ARNIM VON STECHOW: Direktionale Pr positionen und Kontexttheorie 157 RAINER BAUERLE: Tempus, Adverb, temporale Frage . . . 167 HARTMUT POTT: Zum Gebrauch von 'alors q u e 1 , 'pendant q u e 1 , 'tandis q u e ' , 'des q u e ' , und 'aussit t que 1 . . 179 MARIA-ELISABETH CONTE: Gibt es kontrafaktive

Verben?

189

VI

4.

JACQUES FRANCOIS: La transf ormativitg , l'ingressivit§ et l ' e"gressivitg dans une grammaire comparative transf ormationnelle du francais et de l'allemand .......................

201

MANFRED PINKAL : Kontext und Kennzeichnung

.....

215

RÜDIGER SCHREYER: On paraphrase relations

.....

225

AUTOMATISCHE ÜBERSETZUNG

CHRISTOPHER HABEL / ARNO SCHMIDT / HEINZ SCHWEPPE : Zur automatischen Paraphrasierung natürlich-sprachlicher Sätze ...................

239

ROBERT MAIER: Zur Struktur des bersetzungssystems S A L A T ....................

249

CHRISTA HAUENSCHILD: Probleme der automatischen semantischen Analyse des Russischen: eine geeignete Thema-Rhema-Theorie ................

259

EDGAR HUCKERT: Automatische Synthese französischer Nominalgruppen ..................

269

VERZEICHNIS DER AUTOREN

279

VERZEICHNIS DER HERAUSGEBER

285

I N H A L T S V E R Z E I C H N I S ZU BAND 2

Vorwort 1.

IX

SOZIOLINGUISTIK

GIORGIO BRAGA: Sociolinguistics, social linguistics, sociology of language ANNA GIACALONE RAMAT: Zur Beschreibung der variation

Sprach-

GIUSEPPA COLLURA / CLAIRE-ANTONELLA FOREL: Entre le code et l ' u s a g e : Les productions linguistiques feminines HELMUT GLÜCK: Überlegungen zu Zusammenhängen zwischen Geschlecht und Sprache HELGA ANDRESEN: Überlegungen zur Bedeutung der Geschlechtszugehörigkeit für den Schrifterwerb in der Schule LUZIAN OKON: L'enseignement d ' u n e seconde langue, ä quel Sge, d 1 a p r e s quelle m§thode? MARGRIT WETTER: Sprachverhalten Jugendlicher mit verschiedensprachigen Eltern 2.

13

25 35

47 61 67

INTERFERENZPROBLEME

PIER MARCO BERTINETTO: A contrastive study on the production and perception of stress by English and Italian speakers KONRAD SPRENGEL: German-English interference in pronunciation: Some notes on students' English 3.

3

79 93

ARGUMENTATION UND KOMMUNIKATION

JOSEF BAYER: An epistemic approach to argumentation . 109 PAUL-LUDWIG VÖLZING: Zur Struktur von Argumentationen. Psycho- und soziolinguistische Grundlagen einer Argumentationstheorie MEINERT A. MEYER: Argumentation theory for everyday use REINHARD FIEHLER: Kommunikative Bedingungen kooperativer Prozesse. Theorethische und methodische Aspekte

119 131

143

GISELA BRÜNNER: Kommunikative Bedingungen kooperativer Prozesse. Eine Fallstudie 155 JESUS PEREZ-ALONSO: Redundanz und Abtönung: Abgrenzung und gegenseitige Implikationen 165

VIII 4.

SPRECHAKTE UND TEXTE REINHARD WONNEBERGER: Relokution und Partikel am Beispiel 1. Korinther 6,7 CLAUDIA CAFFI: Atti linguistic! indiretti

177 187

GIUSEPPE MOSCONI / CRISTIANA MASSIONI: II discorso

vacuo o il linguaggio senza pensiero CLAUDIA BIASCI: Trattamento dei connettivi: alcuni aspetti 5.

199 209

STIL UND MYTHOS

JOHANNES THOMAS: Sprachtheoretische und methodologische Bemerkungen zur Stilforschung

221

HARTWIG FRANKENBERG: Sprachwissenschaft und Mythologie. Ein neuer Ansatz zur Aufdeckung einer alten Beziehung 229 VERZEICHNIS DER AUTOREN

237

VERZEICHNIS DER HERAUSGEBER

241

VORWORT

Das 12. Linguistische Kolloquium fand vom 6 . - 9 . September 1977 in Pavia (Italien) statt und bot die Gelegenheit zu intensiveren Kontakten zwischen italienischen Linguisten und Linguisten aus anderen europäischen Ländern, insbesondere aus der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Ebenso wie die Akten aus Tübingen (1O. Linguistisches Kolloquium) und Aachen (11. Linguistisches Kolloquium) erscheinen auch die Akten von Pavia in zwei Bänden. Aus der grossen Zahl der Referate sollte man jedoch nicht den Fehlschluss ziehen, es hätte sich um ein grosses Kolloquium gehandelt. Ganz im Gegenteil: die Zahl der Teilnehmer war relativ niedrig. Nur siebzig Linguisten waren gekommen, die aber fast alle ein Referat zur Diskussion stellten. Es war also kein Kongress, sondern ein wirkliches Kolloquium, das in Stil und Atmosphäre wieder mehr den Linguistischen Kolloquien der ersten Jahre glich. Wie es bei den Linguistischen Kolloquien üblich ist, gab es auch in Pavia keinerlei thematische Einschränkung für die Referate. Als Organisatoren des Kolloquiums hatten wir aber schon im 1. Rundschreiben dazu eingeladen, Referate zur Frage der Wortstellung vorzubereiten. Zu diesem Thema wurden acht Referate vorgetragen, die in zwei Sitzungen intensiv diskutiert wurden. Das Problem der Wortstellung bildete somit einen Schwerpunkt des Kolloquiums, der sich jetzt im Titel des 1. Bandes (Wortstellung und Bedeutung) niederschlägt. Wir haben auch die anderen Referate einigen grob festgelegten thematischen Bereichen zugeordnet. Diese Zuordnung war häufig problematisch, und einige Referate hängen nur sehr locker mit dem Thema der Sektion, in die sie eingegliedert wurden, zusammen. Im 1. Band folgen auf die erste Sektion: Wortstellung und Typologie drei weitere Sektionen: Syntax und generative Theorie," Semantik; Automatische Übersetzung. Der 2. Band (Sprache im Kontext) enthält die Sektionen: Soziolinguistik; Argumentation und Kommunikation; Interferenzprobleme; Sprechakte und Texte; Stil und Mythos.

Die beiden Bände bilden eine Einheit und dokumentieren bestimmte Forschungsinteressen, die augenblicklich in Europa von ganz jungen und nicht mehr ganz so jungen Linguisten vertreten werden. Was die technische Seite der Herausgabe der Akten b e t r i f f t , so richten sich die Bände nach dem Muster der Akten von Tübingen und Aachen. Die Autoren haben ihre Beiträge selbst nach einheitlichen Schreibanweisungen auf Spezialpapier geschrieben, und die Beiträge sind in dieser Form vom Verlag gedruckt worden. Die Verantwortung auch für die Form lag voll bei den Autoren. Wir haben als Herausgeber geringfügige Fehler selbst korrigiert, einige Beiträge, f a l l s die äussere Form es verlangte, haben wir an die Autoren zurückgeschickt und neu schreiben lassen. Nicht alle Beiträge entsprechen voll den typographischen Normen. Aber bei der Wahl zwischen formaler Homogenität der Beiträge und einem raschen Erscheinen der Bände haben wir der rechtzeitigen Veröffentlichung den Vorrang gegeben. Zum Schluss möchten wir all denen unseren Dank aussprechen, die zum Gelingen der Tagung in Pavia beigetragen haben: den Organisatoren des 11. Linguistischen Kolloquiums in Aachen, die uns in den verschiedenen Phasen der Organisation unseres 12. Linguistischen Kolloquiums berieten; dem Rektor der Universität Pavia, der die Tagungsräume zur Verfügung stellte und zur Eröffnung des Kolloquiums einen Aperitif anbot; den Direktoren der collegi universitari, die angenehme und billige Unterkünfte für die Teilnehmer bereitstellten; der Stadt Pavia, die den Ausflug zur Kartause von Pavia und nach Vigevano ermöglichte; nicht zuletzt Herrn G.Gilbert!, der mit viel Umsicht vor,während und nach der Tagung das Sekretariat des Kolloquiums leitete.

Pavia, im Januar 1978

Maria-Elisabeth Conte Anna Giacalone Ramat Paolo Ramat

1. WORTSTELLUNG UND TYPOLOGIE

TOWARDS A TYPOLOGY OF THEME AND R H E M E : SOV LANGUAGES Laszlo Dezso

T shall discuss the following topics in this paper: 1. the place of the process of theme and rheme in syntactic typology, 2. the typological process of theme and rheme in SOV languages, 3. the change of the rules of this process in connection with the change of SOV type. It goes without saying that T can only comment on the main issues of these topics in this brief paper. 1.

The place of the process of theme and rheme in syntactic typology

In order to clarify this problem, I must /a/ interpret the notion 'process', /b/ mention those processes that are closely connected with that of theme and rheme, and /c/ to describe theme and rheme as a process in its relation to other processes. The use of the term 'process' may be new in the metalanguage of typology but what is meant by it is the description of a typological subsystem by means of rules and principles. It assumes that a subsystem of language can be described in a synthetic approach starting from an invariant base and resulting in typological structures. An invariant base s t r u c t u r e is characterized in the universal terms of typology. The derivation of resulting structures is given by a calculus, i.e. by a logically possible set of derivational rules. Fact-finding typology is interested in those of them which result in various types of derived structures, but the non-productive rules are also relevant to a subsystem theory. Principles that underly and explain other rules are of particular importance. The resulting structures are characterized also by

formal means expressing them. What T have said is not novel from the point of view of the methodology of linguistics. It reflects the views of the Leningrad group of typology and is close to the approach or the Cologne project on language universals, though the latter uses the term 'dimension'. I do not intend to enumerate the processes more or less adequately studied by typology. I call the attentiun only to two of them; structuring of a sentence and diathesis. Instead of describing them in any detail T shall regard them from the point of view of theme and rheme. I shall use the term 'functional sentence perspective' in order to cover trie whole communicative organization of the sentence that includes both diathesis, i.e. the derivation of active, passive, impersonal etc. sentences, and their further variants resulting from the application of the rules of word order, sentence stress and morphological means expressing theme and rheme. Thus, functional sentence perspective is a common term for both diathesis and theme-rheine rules. It consists of two cycles: f i r s t , the various diatheses are derived, then the theme and rheme variants of each diatnesis are formed. In order to derive the basic /active/ and then the secondary /passive, impersonal/ diatheses and to form the various types of sentence s t r u c t u r e s , invariant structures are needed. They consists of a predicate, of obligatory arguments or actants, of free arguments or cireumstants. The obligatory arguments may have features or labels reflecting the active or non-active role of the argument in an action, state or event. They depend on the features or classes of the predicate. The free arguments denote the place, time, manner of an action, state or event. In the basic diathesis, in its basic theme-rheme variant, one of the obligatory arguments is the subject or the main element of the theme, another argument is the object, or the main element of the rheme. In the basic diathesis the arguments take the role of subject and that of object according to their degree of "communicative dynamism", i.e. according to a universal scale of value for communication: the f u t u r e subject has a lesser, the future object has a higher value for communication.

There are two principles of morphological marking: subject marking and object marking. The means of marking are the morphemes of the noun or those of the verb. There are two types of subject marking languages: ergative and active. In ergative languages only a subject of a transitive verbal predicate is marked, in active languages the subject of an intransitive predicate is also marked. The object is unmarked in both types. In object marking or nominative languages, the s u b j e c t is unmarked, the object is marked. In marking the subject or o b j e c t , the features or classes of predicate are reflected /KLT1VOV 1973, DEZSÖ 197d/. There are languages neutral from the point of view of marking the subject or the object. These types of sentence structure may be derived by a calculus proposed by Kibrik /KIBRIK. 197Ö/. The subtypes show the influence of determination and aspect, e.g. in the partitive rur.type of nominative languages, the nominative, accusative v_s.partitive affixes are chosen according to the definiteness of the subject, of the o b j e c t and the perfective or non-perfective aspectuality of the verbal predicate /UEZSÖ 197tV. These sentence types nave or may have their secondary diathesis variants: passive, impersonal etc. sentence structures. The calculus of diathesis was described by (Chrakovsky and its typology was elaborated by the Leningrad group /TTPOLOGIJA 1974, CHRAKOVSKIJ 19757. The process of theme and rheme starts from the variants of diathesis. The types of the l a t t e r are the invariant structures for the variants of theme and rheme. 2.

The process of theme and rheme in 30V languages

The process of theme and rheme h.-. - its rn.r>ed -r/J.c the .rhcne The means of its marking are sentence stress, word order and special morphemes. Sentences stress is universal, word order has various types, the use of mornhological means is limited and it will not be examined here. A theme-rheme theory explaining this process differentiates various kinds of rheme: focus assuming no previous context, emphasis, when a piece of information is lacking, and contrast, when a previous

contrasting context is assumed. Typology has studied the theme-rheme problems of the basic diathesis of nominative sentences, consisting cf a verbal predicate, subject and direct object. The terms s u b j e c t , direct o b j e c t and verbal predicate denote the parts of a n o m i n a t i v e sentence, hence "surface" categories. These results can be extrapolated to ergative, active and neutral lan^uar^es, but then the terms must be reconsidered. Typology disposes a considerable amount of non-systematized data concerning sentences with an indirect object and with various adverbials. The basic theme and rheme variant of basic diathesis may be one of the six possible combinations of S, 0 and V. The basic variant does not require a special previous c o n t e x t , and therefore its rheme is only focused. The data of various languages show that 4 of the six variants are used as basic ones. Tn three of them: SOV, SVO and VSO, the subject precedes the o b j e c t and the degree of communicative dynamism increases in the linear order but in VOS type it decreases. In all of the possible sentences, stress marking the rheme is posited on the 0

/see

DEZSÖ 1970, DEZSÖ-SZEPE 197V. I shall confine myself to the SOV type, confronting it w i t h the SVO type. In the secondary v a r i a n t s , the order of 0 and S is the reverse because its use assumes a previous context c o n t a i n i n g 0. The primary place of stress marking the rheme is on the s u b j e c t : /!/

SUV OSV

/2/

SVO OVS

/">/ VSO VOS or SVO

In the primary and secondary variants of types SOV and SVO,the place of verb is the same in both variants. In a tertiary variant of both types the verb is in a sentence initial position and followed by the s u b j e c t and o b j e c t : VSO. The sentence stress

is on the verb in SOV languages, it is on S in SVO languages. /The latter may stress V, but this may be a relic of an earlier stage of SOV type./ The place of an indirect object and that of various adverbials is determined by the universal principle of semantic cohesion: the direct object is usually the closest to the verb, the indirect object stands further. The place of the adverbials depends on their relation to the predicate: manner adverbials tend to be close to the verb, most of the adverbials are further from the verb than the objects and setting adverbials may be in sentence initial position. This is the usual position of the various parts of a sentence: A Set SAO id O d V

/2/

ASetSVoVdA

The most important word order variants are usually described in the studies of individual languages and typology could formulate their regularities. Very little is known about the principles of sentence stress. What I am going to say should be regarded only as tentative and temporary statements based on the data of Uralic, Altaic and some Indo-European languages /cf. 3ASKAKOV 1975, ÖEHNYäEV 19C5, GAZIZOV 19C6, IVANOV 1963, MUSAJEV 1961, NUSAROV 1974 , SOVREI.IEKNYJ/. The usual place of sentence stress and hence that of rheme is the position immediately preceding the verb. If this position is occupied by an element that cannot be moved from this place /e.g. an indirect object in absolute case in Turcic languages/, an element further before the verb can be stressed. If X denotes a stressed element, an unstressed one, then: /i/

XV

/u/

XYV

demonstrate the variants of the preverbal stressing principle. In languages having no elements with fixed preverbal position /e.g. in Hungarian/ only variant /i/ is possible, i.e. a stressed element must immediately precede the verb. In languages with both variants, a stressed element may be separated from the verb under special conditions. In rigid SOV languages, no element can follow the verb. If a postverbal position is admitted, the element following the verb is either unstressed or has an emphatic or contrastive stress denoted by X:

/Hi/

VY

/iv/ VX

In SVO languages, the usual place of the focused rheme is after the verb either in an immediately postverbal position of after an unstressed element: /i/

/ii/

VX

VYX

In a preverbal position the rheme expresses emphasis or contrast in SVO languages with free word order:

/iii/

Χϊ

Thus, the principles of stressing the rheme are the opposite in SOV and SVO languages. The rules of individual languages are more complicated because they are often of mixed tyoe. If in SOV languages an element does not stand close to the verb, as a result of the semantic cohesion principle, but is stressed, it moves to an immediately preverbial position, if it can do so, and instead of SAO1 0 V one finds: SAOdOldV

or

SOldndAV

or

AOldndSV

etc.,

where 0 , A, S are stressed. /Of course, the position of unstressed nominal elements may vary./ If the immediately preverbal position is occupied, the stressed element stands before the verb and tends

to the

closest possible position; e.g. SO1 AO V

or AOldSOdV etc. The verb nay be stressed in any position, but if it is in sentence initial position, it has an obligatory emphasis or contrast. %

The change of theme-rheme rules in connection with the change of SOV type

If a language changes its type of word order from SOV to SVO, it has to change the principles of sentence stress as well. The restricted subtypes of both types he.ve r.o comnon variant: /!/

SOV CSV

/2/ SVO OVS

and no change of type is possible. The existence of a common variant VSO is of no relevance. A change of type is possible in cases of free word order, when the basic order and the stressing principles of the two types differ but the untypical variants are also used; /!/

SVO OVS

/2/ SOV OSV

The untypical variants of SOV languages has one /or, in cases of 4 elements, several/ elements in postverbal position. They may be either unstressed or contrasted but they cannot have simple focus. An SOV language must change its principles to those of SVO:

to

SOV: /i/ SVO: /i/

stressing

XV /ii/ XYV /iii/ VX or VY VX /ii/ VYX /iii/ XV

10

The postvorbal position must also be a focused one instead of an unstressed or in addition to a contrasted position of SOV type. The preverbal position cannot be used in cases of focus, Dut it will preserve its emphatic or contrastive status /that was not specially mentioned earlier/. The main principle of preverbal stressing changes to a postverbal one. Thus one arrives at the principles of Russian /cf. DEZSo 197b/. Proto-IndoEuropean and Proto-Slavic were SOV languages, Modern Russian belongs to SVO languages with free word order. It haspreserved the stress on the sentence initial verbs: VSO instead of VSO with a stressed S in such an originally SVO language, like Swahili. The process of transition from an SOV type to SVO type is more complicated, of course, ifany languages have variants of mixed type in cases of four elecients^e.g. SO VO1 with a direct object before and «with an indirect one after the verb. Other languages have double word order depending on the structure of the sentence. Both phenomena can be found in Hungarian /cf. DEZSO 197Ö/. Double word order is a result of change and is connected with differences in determination and aspect in Hungarian and in other languages. There are other variants of double word order, e.g· sentences with synthetic and analytic verbal predicates and the difference between main and subordinate clauses in German /cf. RAMAT/.

11

LITERATURE

BASKAXOV, N . A . /1975/: Istoriko-tipologiceskaja charakteristika struktury tjurskich jazykov. Moskva: Nauka. ΟΈΗΝΥέΈν, V.A. /196V: Sintaksis prostogo predlofenija v chindi. Moskva: Nauka. CHR'KOITSKIJ , V.S. /1975/:Iooislenije distez, Diatezy i zalogi. Leningrad. DBZSC·, L. /197 /: Studies in syntactic typology and contrastive grammar. Budapest: Akade'miai Kiadd. DEZSO, L. - SZiPE, Gy. /1974/: Contribution to the topic-comment problem. Topic and corrjnent, contextual boundness and focus, /ed. . Dahl/ Hamburg, 69-93. GAZIZOV, R . C . /190C/: Sopostavitel'naja gramnatika tatarskogo i russkogo jazykov. Kazan*. IVANOV, Vjafi. V. /19CV: Chettskij jazyk. Foskva: Nauka. KI3RIK, A.Je., Srgativity standard and Daghestan languages: Ergative syntax /ed. F. Flank/ /to anpear in 197o/. KLIMOV, G.A. /1973/ Offerk obs'c'ej teorii ergativnosti. Bioskva: Nauka. MU3AJEV, D.I. /19C1/: Porjadok slov v predlozenijach anglijskogo i azerbajdSanskogo jazykov. Baku. WU§AROV, W.¥. /1974/: Bamo^naja konstrukcija v nemeckom jazyke i zamykanije v uzbeksom. Samarkand. RAMAT, P. /1976/: Ist das germanische ein 50VSprache? Akten des V. Internationalen GermanistenKongresses. Cambridge. 1975: 25-35. Sovremennyj kazachskij jazyk. /19C2/ Alma A t a . Tipologija passivnych konstrukcij. /19C4/ Leningradi Nauka.

PROBLEMS W I T H OV/VO WORD ORDER K l a u s - P e t e r Lange

1.

T h i s p a p e r d e a l s w i t h a t h e o r y of w o r d o r d e r w h i c h can be

roughly d e f i n e d by citing the names of Greenberg, L e h m a n n , and V e n n e r a a n n . T h e i r t h e o r y also c l a i m s to be t y p o l o g i c a l . f i r s t x y g i v e some r e f l e c t i o n s

on the u n t e n a b i l i t y of their ap-

p r o a c h , and s e c o n d l y s u g g e s t a new way out of the into which it 2.

Although

k n o w n , it

I will

difficulties

is bound to run. I believe that this theory of word order is widely

i s n e c e s s a r y f o r rny p u r p o s e s t o r e c a l l some n o t i o n s

that a r e basic t o i t .

VENNEMANN (1973a), ( 1 9 7 3 b ) , ( 1 9 7 H ) , (1975)

s u b s c r i b e s t o G R E E N B E R G ' s ( 1 9 6 1 ) idea t h a t t h e r e a r e , o n a guage u n i v e r s a l VSO,

the

scale, three basic types of word order,

S V O , and the

SOVtype, which mean that

the

lan-

viz.

the

type of a

language is determined by the relative order of s u b j e c t , o b j e c t , and v e r b . But more t h a n t h i s , the r e l a t i v e o r d e r of t h e 0 and V c o n s t i t u e n t i s s u p p o s e d n o t only t o r e f l e c t

the relative position

o f v e r b a n d o b j e c t , b u t also t h a t o f o t h e r c o n s t i t u e n t s s t a n d i n t h e same r e l a t i o n o f m o d i f i e d a n d m o d i f y i n g

which

element to

e a c h o t h e r , a s v e r b a n d o b j e c t d o . T h e s e o t h e r r e l a t i o n s a r e for instance n o u n / q u a l i f y i n g adjective or noun/noun

in t h e g e n i t i v e

case . Since, however, the m a j o r i t y of languages, as for example Engl i s h o r G e r m a n , does n o t f i t

i n t o t h i s very r i g i d p a t t e r n , a s

Greenberg himself admitted freely

from the very b e g i n n i n g (German

has 0V o r d e r in s u b o r d i n a t e clauses and can h a v e VO in m a i n clauses),

G r e e n b e r g had to r e s t r i c t his m a t e r i a l ,

c o n s i d e r i n g n o t h i n g but the

and he did so by

r e l a t i v e order of S, 0, and V in

in-

dependent declarative clauses w i t h nominal subject and o b j e c t . But G r e e n b e r g ' s i n t e r e s t w a s a s t a t i s t i c a l o n e , a n d h o w e v e r h e w o u l d have r e s t r i c t e d h i s m a t e r i a l h e w o u l d have r e a c h e d u n d e b a table results. T u r n i n g now to V e n n e m a n n , we w i t n e s s the a t t e m p t to get

all

those c o n f l i c t i n g f a c t s into line w h i c h Greenberg had put into

14

small s t a t i s t i c a l r e s t s . O b v i o u s l y d r i v e n by a s e n s e of p u r i s m and i d e a l i s m , V e n n e m a n n t r i e s to m a k e a rule out of G r e e n b e r g ' s statistical main figures.

On the b a s i s of the f a c t t h a t m o s t of

t h e l a n g u a g e s w i t h 0 V word order p u t m o d i f y i n g c o n s t i t u e n t s

be-

f o r e m o d i f i e d o n e s , and most of the VO l a n g u a g e s r e v e r s e t h i s order, he sets up his " p r i n c i p l e of n a t u r a l s e r i a l i z a t i o n " w h i c h says t h a t 0 V l a n g u a g e s t e n d t o serialize m o d i f i e r s ( i n h i s t e r m s "operators")

before their respective modified elements (in his

t e r m s " o p e r a n d s " ) , w h e r e a s it is t h e o t h e r way a r o u n d in VO languages . But h o w does h e cope w i t h t h e u n d e n y a b l e f a c t

that languages

i n very rare cases o n l y , l i k e A r a b i c o r J a p a n e s e , give e v i d e n c e for the correctness of the principle of natural s e r i a l i z a t i o n ? The a n s w e r i s t o b e f o u n d i n V E N N E M A N N ( 1 9 7 4 : 3 1 7 ) : ... if it is so 'natural 1 to have a certain word order or one of two kinds of word order, why are not all languages consistent in the word order type that they represent? The answer is, of course, that languages change. If

I i n t e r p r e t e V e n n e m a n n ' s i n t e r e s t in h i s t o r i c a l w o r d o r d e r

c h a n g e c o r r e c t l y , it is no i n t e r e s t in i t s e l f , r a t h e r , he has come t o t h i s f i e l d o f r e s e a r c h t h r o u g h t h e n e c e s s i t y o f r e m e d i a t i n g , or more u n p o l i t e l y of concealing, the i n a d e q u a c i e s of his "natural serialization principle". It

is this principle which my

f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n s w i l l now c e n t e r on. I will not go i n t o a discussion of V e n n e m a n n ' s theory of typological for

change. This has

i n s t a n c e b e e n done b y L I / T H O M P S O N ( 1 9 7 4 ) a n d K L E I N ( 1 9 7 5 ) . But i t

could b e w o r t h w i l e t o c o n s i d e r t h e n a t u r a l s e r i a l i z a -

t i o n p r i n c i p l e more closely s i n c e it i s ( t h o u g h n o t u n d e r t h i s special n a m e ) also p r e s e n t i n t h e w o r k o f L E H M A N N ( 1 9 7 4 ) , more c o r r e c t l y : L e h m a n n i n v e n t e d w h a t V e n n e m a n n l a t e r called t h e n a tural serialization principle. While Greenberg believed that t h e r e is a t h r e e f o l d b a s i c c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of l a n g u a g e s as SVD, and VSO,

Lehmann thought it

SOV,

more a d e q u a t e t o p o s t u l a t e a

double basis for the typology of languages. The reason was that he b e l i e v e d t h e r e to be a m e c h a n i c a l c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e

re-

lative position of verb and o b j e c t and the relative position of t h o s e o t h e r o p e r a t o r s and o p e r a n d s I m e n t i o n e d , i . e . , changes its

w h e n a lan-

basic verb position, the correlated phenomena

15 w i l l also c h a n g e s u b s e q u e n t l y . H e does n o t s a y w h y t h i s s h o u l d be s o ,

why changing the relative p o s i t i o n of the verb should re-

sult in a s u b s e q u e n t o r d e r c h a n g e of o t h e r o p e r a t o r / o p e r a n d r e l a tionships. Vennemann, who adopts Lehrnann's fundamental v i e w s ,

al-

s o f a i l s t o give a n e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e s t r u c t u r a l l y l e a d i n g r o l e of t h e v e r b . T o d e t e r m i n e w h y b o t h l i n g u i s t s gave t h e v e r b t h e p r o m i n e n t role o f t h e h e a d i n g f u n c t i o n guess w o r k . A s o l u t i o n

in t y p o l o g y , we are t h r o w n upon

c o u l d be t h a t in the

generative process

the verb is the most f u n d a m e n t a l operand since earlier t h a n a l l

it i s g e n e r a t e d

t h e o t h e r p o s s i b l e o p e r a n d s , a t l e a s t i n a case

grammar w h i c h L E H M A N N ( 1 9 7 4 ) f a v o u r s . A n o t h e r p r o b l e m i s chanicity lus

the me-

of word order change w i t h the verb change as its

and the other changes as responses.

stimu-

Whyshould t h e r e be such

a m e c h a n i c a l law in l a n g u a g e l i f e ? 2.1.

I now t u r n to a special argument against t a k i n g the posi-

tion of the verb as basic for typological c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . F i r s t , I w i l l d e f i n e w h a t I t h i n k to be a u t o n o m o u s s y n t a x . guistic conception which views all t h i s in a g e n e r a t i v e functions.

It

syntactic processes

is

a

lin-

(I mean

s e n s e ) as i n d e p e n d e n t of any k i n d of m e a n i n g

The autonomous syntactician

believes that the arrange-

m e n t of w o r d s in a s e n t e n c e d e p e n d s on p s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c f a c t s w h i c h c o n c e r n only t h e a r r a n g e m e n t o f w o r d s , a n d t h a t t h e p o s s i bilities of arrangement within the human mind are preformed,

i.e.

i n n a t e . In any case, the human mind does not have too much f r e e dom i n p u t t i n g w o r d s t o g e t h e r t o f o r m s e n t e n c e s . T h u s , word order p a t t e r n s are not only p r e f o r m e d on a deep g e n e r a t i v e level but also o n t h e s u r f a c e a n d o n t h e i n t e r v e n i n g l e v e l s . L o o k i n g back t o t h e t y p o l o g i c a l t h e o r y w e h a v e b e e n we n o t i c e t h a t i t

f i t s into the general conception of autonomous

syntax. V S O , S O V , and SVO, or 0V vs.

VO are

syntactic patterns

w h i c h seern to b e l o n g to a s p e c i a l l i n g u i s t i c p r o p e r t y m i n d , more exactly m i n d , which is

discussing,

to the

s y n t a c t

ic

of the

property o f t h e

not capable of avoiding the p r o d u c t i o n of those

patterns in concrete sentences. An a l t e r n a t i v e c o n c e p t i o n o f s y n t a x , w h i c h w a s o n c e p r o p o s e d in the

history of generative

g r a m m a r b u t soon f o r g o t t e n ,

be the c l a i m t h a t the o r d e r of w o r d s is

would

not g u i d e d by a p u r e l y

16 s y n t a c t i c m e n t a l c a p a c i t y b u t b y a s e r n i o t i c c a p a c i t y w h i c h controls word order w i t h regard to m e a n i n g . It (now

was C h o m s k y himself

champion of autonomous s y n t a x ) who explicated this concep-

tion to a certain degree in his

first

ledge of t h i s early w o r k of his

has a l m o s t come down to z e r o by

now,

it

is necessary to recall that it

book f r o m 1 9 5 7 . S i n c e k n o w regarded transformations

as meaning d e p e n d e n t , a view which was abandoned in

CHOMSKY

(1965), which initiated autonomous syntax. I t h i n k it

w o u l d be i n t e r e s t i n g and r e w a r d i n g t o go b a c k to

t h e A s p e c t s book t o l o o k f o r

t h e r e a s o n s w h y C h o m s k y came t o

v o u r a u t o n o m o u s s y n t a x . U n f o r t u n a t e l y I h a v e no space to

do so

h e r e . B u t h e w h o does w i l l come t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t h i s sons f o r

fa-

rea-

t h r o w i n g meaning dependence of t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s over-

board are extremely w e a k . His main reason was to make the overall

t h e o r y s i m p l e r by h a v i n g o n l y deep s t r u c t u r e as i n p u t to se-

m a n t i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . He a c h i e v e d this alleged s i m p l i f i c a t i o n at

the cost of the i n v e n t i o n of a n e w . m e n t a l c a p a c i t y

which

or-

ganizes word order w i t h o u t respect to m e a n i n g . This mysterious mental capacity had not existed in linguistic or psychological theory up to t h e n . b o o k i n g back now to C H O M S K Y ( 1 9 5 7 ) w h i c h regarded

transfor-

m a t i o n s as d e p e n d e n t on m e a n i n g , i . e . , as m e a n i n g c r e a t i n g , I w a n t t o call t h i s c o n c e p t i o n " s e m i o t i c s y n t a x " . It s t a n d s

i n con-

t r a d i c t i o n to autonomous syntax since the latter depends on, and semiotic syntax r e j e c t s , the assumption of a purely s y n t a c t i c mental capacity. In this respect autonomous syntax is

consistent

w i t h b o t h C h o m s k y ' s i n t e r p r e t i v e s e m a n t i c s a n d a v a r i e t y o f gener a t i v e s e m a n t i c s m o d e l s , V e n n e m a n n ' s m o d e l b e i n g only o n e o f t h e m . Chomsky has proposed a grammatical theory in which an autonomous s y n t a c t i c component is primary i n p u t to secondary semantic interpretation. All those generative semantics theories (those of Lakoff,

McCawley, Fillmore,

and BARTSCH/VENNEMANN

( 1 9 7 2 ) ) make a

semantic component p r i m a r y , formulated in a somewhat m o d i f i e d predicate calculus, with an autonomous syntactic component as o u t p u t . I n b o t h o f t h e s e g r a m m a r t y p e s , w h i c h have b e e n r e l a t i v e ly well elaborated in the past decade, syntax and semantics have n o t h i n g in common. They are obviously meant to be correlated to different

p a r t s of the m i n d , to a s y n t a c t i c p a r t and a s e m a n t i c

part respectively.

17 Semiotic s y n t a x , h o w e v e r , is based on the a s s u m p t i o n that there is

no mental d i s t i n c t i o n between handling meanings and or-

dered or u n o r d e r e d sets of language signs. T r a n s f o r m a t i o n s are r e g a r d e d as m e a n i n g c r e a t i n g or m e a n i n g a d d i n g . To t a k e an e x a m ple,

autonomous syntacticians like VENNEMANN ( 1 9 7 3 a ) , ( 1 9 7 3 b ) ,

B A R T S C H / V E N N E M A N N ( 1 9 7 2 ) , o r H U B E R / K U M M E R ( 1 9 7 4 ) assume that re m u s t be a b a s i c word o r d e r in G e r m a n w h i c h is

the-

e i t h e r SVO or

SOV ( i n H u b e r / K u m m e r ' s t e r m s ) o r V O v s .

0V (in V e n n e m a n n ' s t e r m s ) ,

and h e w h o t r i e s t o w r i t e a g r a m m a r f o r

German will f i n d the

sic word order by looking at

ba-

independent declarative clauses,

as

Venneinann suggests. Huber/Kummer propose to make that word order basic which provides the p o s s i b i l i t y of deriving all

d e v i a n t word

orders in the easiest way. Both suggestions are unseraantic. It

i s w i d e l y k n o w n t h a t t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e f i n i t e v e r b is a

central issue of German grammar. There are mainly t h r e e places in the German sentence for the verb to s t a n d : i n i t i a l , second, and final

position. The autonomous syntactician, who believes that

one o f t h e s e p o s i t i o n s only i s t h e b a s i c o r u n d e r l y i n g o n e , chooses among t h e m in b u i l d i n g up the

syntactic

component of German

g r a m m a r , and he does so w i t h o u t r e s p e c t to a d i f f e r e n c e

in m e a -

ning expressed by the d i f f e r e n t p o s i t i o n s of the verb. The s e r n i o t i c s y n t a c t i c i a n , h o w e v e r , w i l l n o t h a v e t o c h o o s e among three verb p o s i t i o n s as basic, for he will inquire: what the meaning d i f f e r e n c e

is

expressed by the varying positions of the

verb? He will notice that there is

such a d i f f e r e n c e

with respect

to the illocutionary force of the clause. Take for example the following German sentence: (1)

üb er noch kommt? (= I wonder w h e t h e r h e ' s still coming)

We c a n a n a l y s e ( 1 ) (2)

ob (er

in the

subsequent manner:

noch k o m m t )

Here we have the p r o p o s i t i o n of (1)

in p a r e n t h e s e s and the

cator o f i l l o c u t i o n a r y f o r c e a s i t s f u n c t i o n . self

shows the verb kommt in f i n a l p o s i t i o n .

indi-

The proposition itThe illocution indi-

c a t o r ob is

a s i g n by its

t e n t of the

s e n t e n c e to f o r m a k i n d of y e s / n o q u e s t i o n . We can

replace

o w n , w h i c h t a k e s the p r o p o s i t i o n a l con-

the i l l o c u t i o n i n d i c a t o r ob by other signs of this t y p e ,

18

as for example daß, w i t h o u t changing the prepositional c o n t e n t . By t h i s w e w i l l r e c e i v e t h e i n d e p e n d e n t g r a m m a t i c a l s e n t e n c e : (3)

D a ß e r noch k o m m t ! ( = I ' m surprised that h e ' s still coming)

This s e n t e n c e adds to the proposition er noch kommt the illocut i o n a r y f o r c e o f t h e s p e a k e r ' s s u r p r i s e about w h a t i s s a i d i n t h e proposition.

I l l o c u t i o n a r y f o r c e s are of c o u r s e n o t a l w a y s ex-

p r e s s e d by i n d e p e n d e n t s i g n s , l i k e ob or daß (in many cases in a d d i t i o n t o i l l o c u t i o n a r y verbs l i k e v e r s p r e c h - , e r w a r t - , g l a u b e t c . ) . Very o f t e n ,

they are expressed by transformations invol-

ving the f i n i t e verb. The illocutionary meaning component of p l a i n y e s / n o q u e s t i o n s n o r m a l l y is - at least in G e r m a n and E n g l i s h - d e n o t e d b y a v e r b s h i f t w h i c h t r a n s p o r t s t h e f i n i t e verb from its

p r o p o s i t i o n a l p o s i t i o n to a p o s i t i o n o f t h e p r e p o s i t i o -

nal rest. Taking the parenthesized proposition of (2) as an example, we receive the correct y e s / n o q u e s t i o n (4) by applying the verb s h i f t transformation j u s t described: (4)

Kommt er noch? (= Will he still c o m e ? )

An a d d i t i o n a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n f i l l i n g t h e slot b e f o r e t h e

shifted

verb will add another iliocutionary force to the propositional c o n t e n t o f ( 2 ) , v i z .t h e f o r c e o f d e c l a r a t i o n : (5)(a) (b)

E r k o m m t n o c h ( = H e ' s still c o m i n g ) N o c h kornrat e r ( = A t t h i s m o m e n t , h e ' s s t i l l c o m i n g )

T h u s , t h e sign f o r t h e i l l o c u t i o n a r y f o r c e o f y e s / n o q u e s t i o n s i s a simple shift t r a n s f o r m a t i o n , wheieas the sign for declarations or s t a t e m e n t s is a d o u b l e s h i f t . T w o r e m a r k s a t least a r e n e c e s s a r y h e r e : f i r s t , t h a t c o m m o n p l a c e g u i s t i c

s i g n

c o n c e p t i o n w i l l

h a v e

o f t o

t h e b e

t h e l i n -

r e v i s e d

under this theory of semiotic s y n t a x . Not only i n d e p e n d e n t , physically r e p r e s e n t a b l e , and regularly shaped strings of sounds are l i n g u i s t i c s i g n s b u t also t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l p r o c e s s e s

like those I

have d e s c r i b e d h e r e . S e c o n d , I am a p p l y i n g a n o t i o n of i l l o c u t i o nary f o r c e w h i c h d i v e r g e s

somewhat from that in speech act theo-

r y , w h i c h does n o t m a k e i l l o c u t i o n a r y f o r c e s d e p e n d e n t o n s p e c i a l s i g n s s i g n a l l i n g some s p e c i f i c s p e e c h a c t . S e m i o t i c s y n t a x , however, is forced to i d e n t i f y signs (in the sense in w h i c h I am

19 u s i n g t h i s t e r m h e r e ) w i t h c e r t a i n d e f i n i t e m e a n i n g s o n e class o f w h i c h a r e i l l o c u t i o n s . C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l sign o f a e c i a r a t i o n a l w a y s has t h e m e a n i n g of a d e c l a r a t i o n . T h i s is not contrary to the fact that declarations sometimes can be u t i l i z e d as r e q u e s t s or commands in certain p r a g m a t i c a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s . It tic

has by now become obvious t h a t , in the

framework of semio-

s y n t a x , considerations of basic word order gain a new dimen-

sion. To ask what word order is basic or u n d e r l y i n g is to ask what the order of c o n s t i t u e n t s in the proposition is

like. This

order can be distorted by a d d i t i o n a l s e m i o t i c o p e r a t i o n s .

It

t u r n s out to be a r b i t r a r y , under the present conception of semiotic

syntax, to take the order of independent declarative

clauses

as b a s i c . German is 0V on the p r o p o s i t i o n a l level, for here it

seriali-

zes o b j e c t s b e f o r e the v e r b . On the h i g h e r level " p r o p o s i t i o n + illocution", German is

everything: VSO, VOS, SVO, and OVS. This

shows that these typological

categories

can no longer play any

part in semiotic s y n t a x . But the fact t h a t German serializes obj e c t s before verbs in the proposition does not at all German is

a 0V language in V e n n e m a n n ' s s e n s e , for

rialization principle

the n a t u r a l

se-

c a n , I t h i n k , be discarded and replaced by

a much stronger principle to t h e i r operands. It

mean that

of serializing operators w i t h respect

is t h i s s t r o n g e r p r i n c i p l e I a m g o i n g t o

deal w i t h i n t h e last s e c t i o n o f t h i s p a p e r . 3.

T h e q u e s t i o n t o b e a n s w e r e d h e r e is: w h a t d e t e r m i n e s t h e

ac-

tual position of operators relative to t h e i r operands on the prop o s i t i o n a l l e v e l ? It

is not a n s w e r a b l e on the i l l o c u t i o n a r y level

b e c a u s e h e r e we can f i n d a d i s t o r t i o n of o p e r a t o r / o p e r a n d r e l a t i onships effected

by element s h i f t .

There is

a n e v e n h i g h e r level

of semiotic processes ( t h a t of f u n c t i o n a l sentence p e r s p e c t i v e ) w h i c h also e f f e c t s a r e a r r a n g e m e n t of the

s e n t e n c e , and w h i c h I

do not i n t e n d to go i n t o h e r e any f u r t h e r . The p r o b l e m is

how to

d e t e r m i n e the o p e r a t o r / o p e r a n d r e l a t i o n s h i p s in terms of word order r u l e s . Consider the following German noun phrases: (6)(a) (b) (c)

die heut-ig-e Jugend die Jugend von heute die Jugend heute

(= the youth of today)

20

Everybody who knows German will admit that these NPs are equival e n t i n m e a n i n g apart f r o m some s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t

stylistic fla-

vor. L e a v i n g a s i d e t h e a r t i c l e d i e t w e m u s t , i n e a c h c a s e , i d e n t i f y J u g e n d a s o p e r a n d a n d h e u t - a s o p e r a t o r s i n c e t h e l a t t e r modifies

the meaning of the former. In ( 6 a ) , ( 6 b ) there are additi-

onal s i g n s , among t h e m t h e s u f f i x e d -e_ a n d t h e p r e f i x e d v o n , w h i c h serve t o i d e n t i f y h e u t - a s o p e r a t o r . They a r e o p e r a t o r i n dicators.

Now we can t e n t a t i v e l y put it

as a r u l e t h a t

suffixed

o p e r a t o r i n d i c a t o r s r e q u i r e p r e p o s i n g o f o p e r a t o r s w i t h respect to their operands, whereas prefixed operator indicators require postposing. Testing this assumption first with material from Germ a n , w e n o t i c e t h a t w e have n e i t h e r ( 7 a ) n o r ( 7 b ) : (7)(a) (b)

''"die J u g e n d h e u t - i g - e die von h e u t e Jugend

ft

As t o t h e E n g l i s h l a n g u a g e , w e c a n , f o r

i n s t a n c e , regard the

g e n i t i v e -s_ as a s u f f i x a b l e o p e r a t o r i n d i c a t o r . A c c o r d i n g to our r u l e w e w i l l f i n d ( 8 a ) , but n o t ( 8 b ) : (8 ) (a) (b)

P e t e r ' s car *(the) car Peter's

A d v e r b s are o p e r a t o r s w i t h respect to V P s . If a l a n g u a g e , like E n g l i s h , has developed a s u f f i x a b l e operator indicator for adv e r b s , it will p u t u n s t r e s s e d a d v e r b s b e f o r e t h e V P . S o w e w i l l f i n d sentences like ( 9 a ) , whereas those like ( 9 b ) are ungrammatical: (9)(a) (b)

Sam c a r e f u l - l y sliced the salami *Sam sliced c a r e f u l - l y t h e s a l a m i

As t o I t a l i a n , w e h a v e t h e p r e f i x e d o p e r a t o r i n d i c a t o r d i . T h u s we w i l l g e t (10)(a) (b) (c)

( l O a ) , but neither (lOb) nor ( l O c ) : il lago d i G a r d a i l d i Garda lago ft d i G a r d a i l lago ft

I t w o u l d b e easy c o n t i n u i n g t h e q u o t a t i o n o f i n s t a n c e s f o r t h i s o p e r a t o r s e r i a l i z i n g rule f r o m o t h e r l a n g u a g e s . I c o u l d c o n s i d e r T u r k i s h s u f f i x e s which n e c e s s i t a t e preposing of operators, or I c o u l d m e n t i o n t h e P e r s i a n e z a f e , w h i c h i s a p r e f i x w i t h t h e consequence of postposing operators. But w h a t a b o u t o p e r a t o r s w i t h o u t i n d i c a t o r s ? Here we d i s c o v e r

21 first the possibility of integrating either in front (ll)(a) (b) (c) (d)

operators

into the operand

or behind. Examples for f r o n t - i n t e g r a t i o n

are:

Hitler-Jugend (German) (youth) ignifer (Latin) (fire) (bearing) polem-archos (Greek) (war) (leader) fast-running

Examples for b a c k - i n t e g r a t i o n are: (12)(a) (b) (c)

Kongen (Danish) ( k i n g ) ( d e f . article) watoto (Swahili) (classifier) (child) nach-Hause (German) (to) (house )

The second p o s s i b i l i t y of h a n d l i n g o p e r a t o r s w i t h o u t i n d i c a t o r s is

a d p o s i t i o n w i t h t h e same d i c h o t o m y o f p u t t i n g o p e r a t o r s i n

front

or behind. Front-adposition examples are:

(13)(a) (b) (c) (d)

( t h e ) above address büyük köpek (big) (dog) ( e e n ) boek lezen (a) (book) (read) schnell f a h r e n (fast) (drive)

(Turkish) (Dutch) (German)

As b a c k - a d p o s i t i o n e x a m p l e s w e m a y t a k e : (14)(a) (b) (c) (d)

read a book leggere u n g i o r n a l e (read) (a newspaper) v o i t u r e rouge (car) (red) ( d i e ) Jugend heute (youth) (today)

(Italian) (French) (German)

P r e s e n t e d w i t h a c t u a l l a n g u a g e d a t a , w e come t o a s i x f o l d p a t tern of operator p o s i t i o n i n g on the propositional level, namely integration, adposition,

and a f f i x a t i o n each of w h i c h is to be

divided into the subpossibilities of preposing and postposing. This framework

is,

I t h i n k , more a d e q u a t e t o t r e a t t h e s e r i a l i z a -

tion of operators than V e n n e m a n n ' s principle of natural serializ a t i o n b e c a u s e it i s,

e n a b l e s us to d e s c r i b e w o r d o r d e r as it

really

not as it is e v o l v i n g . By a d o p t i n g t h i s t h e o r y , w h i c h s u r e -

ly has to be e l a b o r a t e d ,

as I d i d in L A N G E (to

a p p e a r ) , we a v o i d

22 a very serious consequence involved in V e n n e m a n n ' s p r i n c i p l e , i.e.

t h e c o n s e q u e n c e o f d i v i d i n g l a n g u a g e s i n t o good o n e s a n d

b a d o n e s , t h e good o n e s b e i n g t h o s e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e p r i n c i p l e , t h e b a d ones b e i n g those n o t c o n s i s t e n t

(cf. BARTSCH/VENNEMANN

(1972: 135)).

REFERENCES BARTSCH, Renate / VEMEMANN, Theo (1972): Semantic structures. Frankfurt/M: Athenäum. CHOMSKY, Noam (1957): Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton. (1965): Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: M . I . T . Press. GREENBERG, Joseph H. (1961): "Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements". GREENBERG, J.H. ( e d . ) , (1966): Universals of language. 2nd ed. Cambridge, Mass.: M . I . T . Press: 73-113. HUBER, Walter / KUMMER, Werner (1974): Transformationelle Syntax des Deutschen I. Munich: Fink. KLEIN, Wolfgang (1975): "Eine Theorie der WortStellungsveränderung ...". Linguistische Berichte 37: 46-57. LANGE, Klaus-Peter (to appear): Syntax und natürliche Semantik im Deutschen. LEHMANN, Winfried P. (1974): Proto-Indo-European syntax. Austin: Univ. of Texas Press. LI, Charles N. / THOMPSON, Sandra A. (1974): "An explanation of word order change SVO - SOV". Foundations of Language 12: 201-214. VENNEMANN, Theo (1973a): Language type and word order. Trier: L . A . U . T . (1973b): "Explanation in syntax". KIMBALL, John P. ( e d . ) , (1973): Syntax and semantics. Vol. 2. New York: Seminar Press: 1-50. (1974): "Topics, subjects, and word order: From SXV to SVX via TVX". ANDERSON, John / JONES, Charles (eds.), (1974): Historical linguistics. Amsterdam: North Holland: 339-376. (1975): "An explanation of drift". LI, Charles N. ( e d . ) , (1975): Word order and word order change. Austin: Univ. of Texas Press: 270-305.

ON SUBJECT: A CONTRIBUTION FROM CHILD ACQUISITION Elisabetta Fava

The problem of defining grammatical notions such as Subject, Object and stating their possible ordering in natural languages has been an important issue in linguistic theory. However, in the transformational generative framework of the Aspects type , the redefinition of Grammatical Relations (GRs) in terms of constituent structure, largely defended by psycholinguists as a realistic model, diminished theoretical interest for such notions and discussions concentrated rather on the ordering of the elements in underlying structures. In fact, linearization, assigned to phrase structure rules of the base component to define the underlying level of the syntactic structures, implies that there is some single string ordering relation between any pair of elements introduced into any deep structure

with no possibility of

free word order at all. However, objections and criticisms were levelled both in a non generative framework, where the insufficiency of such definition of GRs was pointed out, and in a generative one, where proposals have been made to free syntax from 2 underlyingly assigned precedence relations . Recently, it has been largely stressed that the configurational definition of Subject is not possible on crosslinguistic bases: it has been proposed (COLE/SADOCK (eds.) 1977)

that GRs in underlying

free

structures be defined in terms of basic properties and of the grammatical processes in which they are involved. Operating within this last framework, I would specify those properties of GRs firstly acquired by the child in the form of a system of rules which conform to Italian and Veneto dialect. In particular, the relationship between the mastering of some of

24

their basic coding properties

(KEENAN 1 9 7 6 )

and their lineariza-

tion rule will be discussed. From the analysis it appears that while the agreement rules of Verb with the Subject are regularly mastered by the child in a very early stage, his order with respect to the Verb seems quite free or in any case the SVO order is not at all the prevailing one. The study of the acquisition of GRs and word order has been f i r stly directed towards the demonstration of the innate character of syntax: researches by McNEILL ( 1 9 6 6 a , 1966b, 1 9 7 0 ) , SLOBIN ( 1 9 6 6 ) , ROEPER ( 1 9 7 3 a , 1973b) try to demonstrate that the existence of a preferential or fixed order can be explained only by referring to innate knowledge of syntax. McNeill, for instance, by assuming the configurational definition of Subject, Object as universal (McNEILL 1966a: 1 0 2 ) has tried to demonstrate the existence of basic language definitional universals, reflecting a specific linguistic ability and not necessarily a cognitive ability. The c h i l d ' s innate knowledge of GRs was reflected by the use of fixed order strategy even in languages which permit a relatively flexible ordering rule (children talk base strings directly even in R u s s i a n ) . The evidence of a fixed order strategy was reasserted by Roeper. She states that in German the subordinate clause strategy is a powerful mechanism for the discovery of the deep structure order. A c h i l d ' s awareness that the sentence was embedded and therefore had to be processed with ciclical transformations would entail an awareness that positions of (almost) all elements were fixed and therefore reflected deep structure. A serious challenge to such proposals based on purely syntactic strategy was given by BOWERMAN ( 1 9 7 3 a , 1 9 7 3 b ) , who showed standing

that the evidence used to attribute to the child an underof basic GRs and the constituent

structure they en-

tail was inconclusive. On the contrary, there is evidence of variable word order from the time of the earliest two word utterances. She suggests that the word order is heavily influenced by input ( a d u l t ' s speech to child) and that children's initial combinations are based primarily on semantic considerations. A partially similar position is encountered also in BATES (1976: 192-211), who/besides, stresses the importance of pragma-

25

tic factors in determining word order in the preoperational stage; also in Bates'work the interest for word order is strongly related to the verification of the existence of the notion of deep Subject. By analysing the statistical occurrences of the orders of Subject and Object with respect to the Verb and between them as appeared from the speech of two Italian children , she discovered a large use of orders d i f f e r e n t from the basic SVO order , i.e. orders that in Italian are marked or ungrammatical. In all cases observed there was a strong tendency to have semantic Subjects in final position. This fact was explained by Bates on pragmatic ground, confirming the hypothesis on child word order formulated in BARONI/FAVA/TIRONDOLA ( 1 9 7 4 ) . V a r ia t i o n s in the constituent order may be explained by the tendency to have, in a very early stage of acquisition, f i r s t new information and later given. In the same way,Bates argues, the tendency to have final Subject orders depends on the fact that semantic Subjects tend to be more likely old information. The mastering of Subject is relatively late for Bates, and coincides with a switch to have SVO order rigidly fixed, together with a switch from the use of proper name to express speaker and listener to the use of Subject Pronouns and, furthermore, with the productive marking of Subject/Verb agreement: These three standard developments - standard ordering, subject pronouns and subject verb agreement - can all be explained by the possibility that the child has just discovered the concept of syntactic subject. (BATES 1 9 7 6 : 2 0 9 ) In this paper, I will argue that in Italian the linearization process of GRs towards a "preferential" SVO order is later with respect to the acquisition of such notions, whose basic coding properties are present at the beginning of the preoperational stage. Our analysis is based on the tape recorded conversations collected from six children , following weekly their progress for a year and h a l f , from 18 to 30 months of age. Recording of their verbalization was gathered at the nursery school where the children were used to live most of the time, while they were playing together or with the interviewer. Notes were made usually after each session and were based on the tape conversation and on the

26

recollection of the situation at the time of the utterance. The whole corpus consists of about 2 , 8 0 0 utterances. The background of these children is similar: the socioeconomic level of their families is working class: all the fathers are factory workers or small time tradesmen In four cases the mothers also are factory workers; in the other two cases they are housewives. Except for the two children whose mothers are housewives, all the others have been put in a nursery school before reaching seven months, and they spent most of the time there. Due to the poor ratio of staff to children and more generally of qualified teachers in this nursery school, the children were used to playing and interacting verbally most of the time with other children of the same age and it was only during the time they were home that they received specific attention. The families of all children have been living for more generations in Valdagno, a small conservative town in Veneto (province of Vicenza) where dialect, a local variety of Veneto dialect, is still largely spoken by wide social strata. At home families generally speak dialect, even if the parents sometimes make e f f o r t s to speak Italian to the children. In the nursery school the children often prefer to talk with the others in dialect and with teachers in Italian. The interference between the two systems is often revealed. So these phenomena of interference, which mirror general problems of diglossia and bilingualism (MIONI/ARNUZZO 1977; MIONI/TRUMPER 1 9 7 7 ) , particularly problematic in the study of acquisition of the structure of a language, where they cannot be treated as separate systems nor in terms of deviations of one from the other (LABOV 1972) , require an analysis in terms of a single continuum, which has switchings between Italian and Veneto. In Italian and Veneto dialect the properties characterizing the Subject within a clause are represented in their formal structure by a clustering of rules that refer to underlying semantic features such as person/gender/number, rules generally called "agreement rules". This formal system appears to be controlled by the child from the beginning of his linguistic production in the process of mastering the s u f f i x a l Verb conjugation and the related

27

pronominal system, that appear respectively in 30% (Verb) and in 5% (Pronoun) of his utterances. The 85% of Verbs present either the f i n i t e Verb morphs or the past participle one (see table 1 for their respective c u r v e s ) , that must refer to person and number agreement with the Subject in the f i r s t case, or number and gender in the second. Pronouns appear f i r s t l y in the Subject case ( f u l l form) and later in the non-Subject case (clitic) (see table 2 ) . While the analysis of the agreement rules in the past participle is rather problematic since it is hard to decide what are the properties shared with Verbs or with Adjectives, it is mainly in the case of the finite Verb morphology that it is possible to concentrate on the systematically significant relations between Verb suffixes and pronominal system. Tab le 1 : percentages of Verbs categories on total Ver

finite PP infin.

100%

90 U)

J3 M Q) >

80

s

_^*«w

^^^^—~^^™

-*r^**^+^^ ^

^^*^^

*

60 50

Q) .Q

40

3

^^^*^""*™^^. ^sv ^

^r

^^^Sl^^^^

Ο

2

~ _^

70

^~

30 20 --Τ.χ

10

x X "-^--" ^•'•'.

...·-·-. ·.·

1

~

~^

......

^ ^'

·'

8

9

10

11 Stages

In f a c t , the c h i l d ' s ability to cover almost the whole range of morphological endings (see table 3) and a meaningful part of the pronoun system (see table 4) permits the verification of "agreement" as a productive rule. This is not an accidental product of the fact that children use one unmarked form of the Verb 4 to serve almost all functions. The appropriate use by the child of Verb morphology and Pronoun system is gleaned from a detailed analysis of the structure of children's discourse in the interaction with adults or with o-

28

Table 2 ; percentages of Pronouns full clitic

100% 90 to

80

ο 70 ο 60 Λ 50 *0

40

£

30

ε3 20

2

10

9 Table 3 100% u)

10

percentages of finite Verbs persons 1st sing. 2nd sing. 3rd sing, plurals

90

J3 Μ

80

>

70

ω

60

-Ρ τΊ C •Η IM

50

IM 0

30

M (U

20

11 Stages

40

10 3 2

1

8

9

10

11 Stages

ther children. In the question/answer discourse type, for instance, it appears that in c h i l d r e n ' s requests the hearer is always indicated by 2nd person Verb morphs and by 2nd person Pronoun. (1) Massimo , 19 months of age (stage 2 ) , is playing with little cars, talking alone. Realizing Interviewer's presence: 1.1. Massimo: ciao::/veni t ( r ) e n o ? 1 . 2 . Int. : adesso non posso/ 1.3. Massimo: (d)opo poi? (2)

Lele, 19 months of age (stage 2), with a puzzled look on his face: 2 . 1 . Lele: giochi tu?

29

Table 4: percentages of Subject Pronouns 1

100%

—— —

90

1st sing, 2nd sing, 3rd sing,

80 W

c3 70 O

c

60

£

50

-P

40

Ό

30

J3 3

20

0

υ ω

W

10

V

10

11 Stages

2 . 2 . Int . ; sl/se vuoi/ 2 . 3 . Lele : (laughing) no/tu no/ voio mica/ The coherently isomorphic relation between Verb morphs and reference Pronoun system is also a characteristic of utterances where the child refers to himself. He may use either 3rd person Verb morphs and a Proper Name, or 1st person Verb morphs with 1st person Pronoun. Even when the variation is in the same discourse unit the relation is respected. (3) Lele, 26 months of age (stage 8 ) , pointing to a child who cries most of the time: 3.1. Lele : mato quelo la/ 3 . 2 . Int. ; e perch€ sarebbe matto? 3 . 3 . Lele: gioca mai/pange/Lele no pange/ 3 . 4 . Int. ; qualche volta anche tu piangi/ 3.5. Lele ; pango mai io/ In the example (3) Lele switches from the use of his Proper Name (Lele) in 3.3. to personal Pronoun (io) in 3.5. to indicate himself: to the alternation Proper Name/personal Pronoun corresponds variation in the verbal f lexive system ( pange/pango ) . In the same way, the 3rd person Verb morphs, singular and plural, alwyas refer to Subject Noun Phrases, singular or plural, or anaphoric Subject Pronouns. (4) Elisabetta, 2O months of age (stage 3) , pointing to a toy-horse in a corner: 4 . 1 . Elisabetta: ( D o p ( r ) e n d o ? 4 . 2 . Int. : si/ prendilo pure/ 4 . 3 . Elisabetta: (dragging the horse) eco/no voleva/

30

4.4.

Elisabetta: venire/

(5) Orietta, 21 months of age (stage 4 ) , pointing at a cat on the roof: 5.1. Orietta; gato nero/ 5.2. Int. : ehe bei gattone! ti piacciono i gatti? 5 . 3 . Orietta; ( g r ) a f i a n o i gati? From these examples it appears that almost all children's utterances are not only pragmatically

appropriate in various ways

(ERVIN TRIPP/MITCHELL KERNAN (eds) 1 9 7 7 ) but also grammatically matched with respect to Verb morphology and case marking Pronouns. In other words, there is a one-to-one correspondence between the 1st person Verb morph and the 1st person Subject Pronoun, 2nd person Verb morph and 2nd person Subject Pronoun. However, this regular use of Verb agreement with the Subject does not imply fixed order strategies. When the Subject is expressed, it may precede the Verb as in 3 . 3 . , or it may follow it as in 2 . 1 . , 3 . 5 . , 5.3. Table 5 specifies the curve of the SV order

(including SV, SVO orders)

and the VS one (including VS, VOS,

VSO o r d e r s ) . Table 5; percentages of Subjects preceding or following the Verb

etas / dalies n e t e k s i 'non essere troppo coraggioso, l'occhio si spegner ; non essere troppo prudente, perderai la parte'. Evidentemente anche il proverbio a struttura parallela e sentito come una unit ; perci

l'imperativo occupa la posizione iniziale o quella fi-

nale (sempre la posizione di maggior rilievo) a seconda ehe si trovi nei I o nei II membro. 4*2.

Oltre all'imperative, si possono rilevare altre sei condizioni ehe

determinano deviazioni dalla norma della posizione finale del predicate*

52

In 56, 60, 93, 107, 112, 184, 225, 233, anzieht il predicate, si trova in posizione finale un elemento ehe presenta rima o assonanza con 1'elemento finale del I membro. Ad es. x (56)

zilae plaukas g a l v o j δ / velniae u o d e g o j f e pelli grigi sulla testa, il diavolo nel codazzo*

(184)

is t\i s i a u d TJ ra grano * ·

neb s

g r u d tj

»ca-

'dalle festuche non ver-

In 5, 6, 38, 42, 46, 49» 66, 74i 98, 158, 187, 1%, 219, 250, 270 sta

in posizione finale tin infinite o un participio o un nome verbale, anziehe i l verbo coniugato ehe in qualche case e un verbo copulative o servile» Es. t (5)

bed su kvail b a r t i s / s u plik p δ s t i s ' ( e ) difficile litigare con uno stupide, accapigliarsi con un calvo1

(74)

duona verkia tlnginio v a l g o m a 'il pane piange (se e) mangiato dal fannullone 1

(187)

kad daug noresi z i n o t / greit pasensi scere molto, invecchierai presto*.

In 55» 80, 217, 245

'se vorrai cono-

predicate e posto in poeizione iniziale, talo-

ra con funzione espressiva« Es.: (217)

atitiko kirvis kota

*va d'accordo l'ascia con il manico 1 ,

In 32, 33» 34» 35» 36 il predicate nominale si trova in posizione iniziale, percho e un elemento correlative. Es.« (33)

koki obelis / tokie ir obuoliat le mele'.

'qu le il melo, tali anche

Se il predicate e un elemento nominale (come in 6, 9, 10, 17, 21, 27, 4l, 45, 49, 52, 54, 55, 66, 90), & facile ehe S e P si scambino la posizione. Es. t (10)

devyni Βΐηβΐαϊ / desimtas badas (e) la fame*

'nove i mestieri, il decimo

(17)

llgas plaukas / truinpas protas mente'

'lunga capigliatura, corta

(55)

zil , kiaule / zili ir parseliai che i porcelli' .

'grigio il maiale, grigi an-

In 14 e 50 l'aggettivo comparative occupa la posizione iniziale. Que-

53 sto case e assimilabile ai costrutti comparativi del III tipo f ehe banno appunto P all'iniziot (14)

geresnis zvlrblis rankoje / nekaip ilniae glrioje ' ( e ) raigliore 11 passero nella mano ehe 11 cervo nella foresta 1

(50)

sunkesnie vezlmas priee kalna verso la montagna'·

' ( e ) piü difficile 11 trasporto

I proverb! con 11 verbo in posizione non finale ehe non rientrano in questa casistica sono pochi (7, 8, 51, 6?, 95, 98, 111, 118, 133, 151, 221, 266) e potrebbero, alraeno in parte, riflettere una tradizione diversa, minoritaria rispetto ai modelli e alle norme ehe ho esposto.

5·1«

Dall'analisi condotta derivano alcune considerazioni di carattere

generale. L'ordine abituale sF e rigido« L'elemento nominale del predicate e le forme nominal! del verbo sono trattate generalmente come il verbo· II fatto e significative, data 1'importanza ehe hanno le costruzioni nominal! nei proverb! lit\iani· La posizione iniziale e di maggior risalto rispetto alia poeizione finale· Quindi in posizione iniziale va l'elemento ehe e considerate piü slgnificativo. Invece la posizione finale del predicate non e dovuta alia scelta bensl alia tradizione: e una posizione abituale come quelle dell'attribute davanti al sostantivo. La rigidita rende 1'ordine delle parole un elemento di memorizzazione ciofe di richiamo« Esso non e per6 1'unico. Abbiamo anche gli element! correlativi, la rima, 1'allitterazione. Quest! quattro element! talora concorrono, ma per lo piü eono alternativ!. S! puö stabilire queeta graduatoria dl importanza degli element! d! richiamo: 1. element! correlativi, 2. ordine delle parole, 3· rima, 4* allitterazione» Concordano in posizione iniziale S, element! correlativi e allitterazione; in posizione finale, P e rima· La formazione de! proverb! awiene per riproduzione di modelli| per sostituzione o per aggiunta d! element! nello stesso modello.

54 5.2.

Sull'ordine delle parole in lituano le opinion! non sono concordi. 8 Kurechat ne ha dato una definizione rigidissima: soggetto attributi, dative dell'oggetto indiretto» awerbio, accusative, complement! prepositivi del verbo, verbo. L'analisi di Kurschat e limitata alle proposi-

9

zioni indipendenti. Schwentner , ehe estende l'analisi alle proposizioni dipendenti e alle frasi interrogative, sostiene ehe sono present! le tre posizioni del verbot finale, iniziale e mediana. Schwentner pero non distingue il tipo di testo ehe cita, limitandosi ad escludere le traduzioni

»

Hitengo ehe l'ordine delle parole vada studiato analizzando material! omogenei. Questo sempre, e in particolare per il lituano, la cui produzione scritta e moIto diversificata. L'analisi condotta sul corpus dei proverb! mi pare ehe dimostri 1'esistenza di raodelli con alto indice di frequenza. Qualche sondaggio fatto sulle dainos (liriche popolari) e sulle raudog (cant! popolari) hanno rivelato modelli diversii le raudos risultano piü affin! a! proverbi ehe le dainos«

NOTE

1

Questo e il caso, ad esempio, del latino notarile altomedioevale, ehe e caratterizzato dalla ripetizione meccanica di formule mandate a memoria. Per ragioni di spazio rimando ad altra occasione 1'analisi di questo tipo di test!, ehe si presents interessante per lo studio dei modelli sintattici nel passaggio dal latino classico al latino medioevale.

2

Pubblicati a varie riprese, cfr. SEMN 1957» P.15·

3

SENN 1957» pp.15-22. Negli esempi citerö i proverbi con il numero d'ordine ehe hanno in questa raccolta.

4

Sulla sintassi dei proverb! lituani e in corso di stampa un mio contribute in "Studi slavistici in ricordo di Carlo Verdiani" a cura di A.M. Raffo, Pisa, Giardini«

5

In alcuni casi (ad es. 24, 27» 37» 42, 46, 52) funge da predicate un complemento indiretto un awerbio. In altri casi (ad es. 15» 20, 21, 31, 46, 266) il predicate non e espresso.

55

Ho considerate nelle eccezioni tutti i proverbi del II tipo, in cui uno del due verbi non fosse in posizione finale, Nelle locuzioni del III tipo il predicate (nominale o verbale), ehe e anche il referent e, e sempre in posizione iniziale« 7

Cone si vede da questo esempio f anche i pochi proverbi (109, 177» 230) 238, 265) formati da piu di due proposizioni confermano l'importanza de 11« norme rilevate, quelle della struttura binaria o ternaria del proverbio e quelle della posizione finale del predicate»

8

"Grammatik der litauischen Sprache", 1876, pp. 440 egg., cit. da SCHWENTNER 1922, p. 9.

9

SCHWENTNER 1922.

10 La fönte delle citazioni e quasi sempre l'antologia di testi contenuta in Hiedemann, "Handbuch der litauischen Sprache", Strasburgo, 1897·

BIBLIOGRAFIA

SCHHENTNER, Ernst (1922)t Die Hortfolge im Litauischen. Heidelberg, Winter, SENN, Alfred (1957)» Handbuch der litauischen Sprache. II.Lesebuch u. Glossar. Heidelberg, Winter. (1966)* Handbuch der litauischen Sprache. I. Grammatik. Heidelberg, Winter.

SPANISH WORD O R D E R , SUBJECT P O S I T I O N , D I S C U S S I O N OF SOME FORMAL CONSTRAINTS Nicole Delbecque In this paper I will not go into the traditional accounts of Spanish word order. Let me just recall that most granitiars give intuitive explanations for the generally observed variation in the subject position. Clarity, emphasis, the topic-comment distinction, the stylistic notion of hyperbaton and the 'general freedom" in the Spanish language are the key notions which underlie most descriptions of the order of constituents. I do not deny that semantic differences and stylistic or pragmatic reasons may motivate to a certain extent the distinct positions. In fact, the morpho-syntactic structure of the sentence as well as the thematicfunctional organization of the utterance have to be taken into account in order to understand fully the problem of the collocation of the major constituents. The question whether the.description has to be based more heavily on semantic features, rather than on formal features, remains unclear. In the litterature one finds a number of very valuable contributions which mainly stress the semantic aspects of the problem concerned. In order to find out which is the most appropriate way to incorporate this aspect of the Spanish language into its grammar, a thorough investigation of all the possible morphosyntactic features is needed. The basic questions I am concerned with are the following. What does it mean to say that the order subject-verb-object is the dominant order for Spanish ? And, is it possible to invoke other than semantic, stylistic or pragmatic reasons in order to account for the generally observed variation ? My aim is to demonstrate that the so-called freedom in the ordering of the sentence constituents obeys to some formal constraints. In other words, without underestimating the explanatory power of semantic and pragmatic analyses, I want to stress the importance of morpho-syntactic features in this domain. First let me present an overall picture of the facts related to the position of the verb and its grammatical subject. Monentarily I exclude the sentences without overt grammatical subject; I will comment them briefly at the end. As far as the verb position is concerned, it can be said that in half the cases the verb opens the sentence, and in one case out of twenty the verb oomes in final position. These proportions are based on a close examination of two modern essay writers : Ortega y Gasset and Unamuno .

58

This gross classification of the verb position thus accounts for 65 % of the material. For now this may suffice, in order to relate the verb position to the subject position. Of course, initial verb position triggers automatically the postposition of the subject, and final verb position the anteposition of the subject. This strict correlation holds for 15 % of the material (10 % for subject postposition, 5 % for subject anteposition). Nevertheless, the subject position cannot be described in terms of the verb position, since in up to 26 % of the cases (297 of the 910) in which the verb occupies the second position the subject is postposed. The verb second position thus coincides for no more than 74 % of the cases with subject anteposition, i.e. in 7 cases out of 10. (When a clitic forms part of the verbal syntagm the proportion anteposed vs. postposed is a bit lower than 7 to 3). In our data, 7 out of 10 appears to be the overall proportion of subject anteposition. It now becomes clear bo what it really amounts to say that the subject-verb order is the dominant order : in prose writings 70 % of the sentences present this order. And in eight cases out of ten with anteposed subject the sequence subject-verb opens the sentence. To these initial data a final typological feature can be added concerning the postposed subject : in eight cases out of ten it stands in final position. We know thus the relative frequencies of both anteposition and postposition, and we can construct the skeleton of the type-sentence with an internal position for the verb and an external position for the subject. Now the analysis can begin. It has to be made explicit which type of syntactic structures allow for variation in the position of the subject, and, more precisely, which features are connected with subject postposition rather than anteposition, and vice versa. My hypothesis is that a number of factors, formal factors, are related to the subject position; in other words, that the so-called "free variation' is conditioned by systematic features. The aim of the investigation is to develop the 'variable rule1 for the position of the grammatical subject vis-ä-vis its verb. Up till now the variation in the position of the subject has been viewed as a kind of free variation, not bound by any kind of formal, intralinguistic features. Instead of relying upon factors as vague and ambiguous as expressivity, variety, style, and such more, I suggest that the position of the subject is for a great deal the result of interwoven linguistic features. I presume that a whole lot of linguistic constraints can affect in different degrees the subjectposition. Some characteristics will favor postposition, others will disfavor it.

59

As I have already mentioned, I concentrate uniquely on a few formal features. There is, however, no doubt in my mind as to the relevance of the topic-comment articulation and related pragmatic matters for gaining more insight in the sequencing of the syntagms. Heles Contreras discusses the problem extensively from this point of view in his study "A theory of word 2 order with special reference to Spanish", published last year . By the very fact that I am applying a quantitative method, which is automatizable, I feel obliged to say a few words about the procedure followed. I willexemplify it referring to the essay collection of Ortega y Gasset, "Espiritu de la Letra". This corpus is made up of 2783 sentences with a finite verb. Granniatically independent sequences without overt finite verb and quotations are not considered. These sentences, which constitute the corpus, are all subject to the same analysis. It is crucial that the analysis be exhaustive. The analyzed aspects, call them variables, receive a consistent codification, ready to be punched and to form the input for later computer operations. This first step is purely analytic. In synthesizing I have distinguished three steps. First, it is necessary to get a more or less precise idea about the occurrence of the distinct variables. Here I rely upon the absolute and relative frequencies, automatically computed. Second, the interrelation between the factor groups, the groups of variables, has to be measured; for instance, how many times is it the case that a four-constituent sentence containing a transitive non-pronominal verb and lacking any introductory syntagm before the subject-verb unit, has its subject postposed ... hew many times has it the subject anteposed ... and, is this proportion deviant from the overall one ? This kind of questions can be answered by computing cross-tabulations, similar to those used in social sciences, in function of the variable under consideration, in this case : the subject position. In comparing cross-tabulations of various combinations of variables, relevant tendencies show up. In order to unify the observations, and, thus, to find a way of accounting for the observed tendencies in a connex manner, a last program can be run. Herefore I use the Cedergren-Sankoff computer program, put at first into use for socio-linguistic research. This program enables me to weigh the chosen factors with respect to the observed variation. It was especially designed for this kind of linguistic research where the aim is to account for systematic variation and to describe which factors, and in which measure, determine the selection of one variant rather than another. This program is based on probability theory. It estimates for every factor the maximum likelihood of application of the variant, which in this case is

60

the postposition of the subject.

Hence conclusions can be drawn which go

well beyond the frequencies observed in the actual data to predictions on a much larger scale.

As Labov and others have pointed out, this way of viewing

linguistic variation has implications for linguistic theory.

It has turned

out to be necessary to define a new kind of granmatical rule, which is as much part of the language structure and of the individual competence as the former categorical and optional rules : the variable rule. The results I will present now will thus lead to a tentative formulation of the variable rule for the subject position in Spanish sentences. In order to have a comparative basis for my results, I have preferred to discuss those features for which I had already made a similar, though less refined, analysis earlier on another contemporaneous corpus. As a first constraint I would like to present the sentence length, measured by the number of sentence constituents.

This feature had already been studied

in a poem collection of Unamuno, "Cancionero" ; this is a corpus of 8713 sentences, 3574 of which have an overt subject.

There it is the case that the

probability of encountering a postposed subject is the highest in the shortest sentences, and the lowest in the longest sentences, with a steady degression. In the essay collection of Ortega y Gasset, the same tendency shows up. The figures in table 1 represent it.

The appearance of probability 1 for senten-

ces with two constituents in Unamuno does not mean that in these cases the postposition occurs in 100 % of the cases; the first version of the program was so designed as to assign the figure 1 to the most relevant factor for the variation concerned.

The modified version I am using now, just assigns a

probability between zero and one to the different factors, and seems to the data better.

fit

Thus the more sentence constituents, the lower the probabi-

lity of having the subject postposed.

Note, however, that for sentences with

three and four constituents the probability is the same in Ortega y Gasset. This does not detract anything from the tendency in its totality. Number of constituents

2

3

4

5

6+

Ortega y Gasset (prose)

.88

.59

.37

,37

.34

1. (.53)

.91 (-51)

.83 (.48)

.82 (.48)

Unamuno (poetry)

/

Table 1. Effect of the numer of constituents on the postposition of the subject in "Espiritu de la Letra", essay collection of Ortega y Gasset and "Cancionero", poem collection of Unamuno.

61

Remarkable is the fact that this tendency can be observed in poetry as well as in prose. The fact that the probabilities for Unamuno's "Cancionero" are generally higher, close to one, is due to the different relative frequency of postposition and anteposition. Later on I will conment briefly upon this difference, while comparing both corpora in the light of the global results . In October '77 the second version of the program has also been applied to the formerly analyzed Unanuno-corpus in order to provide a wholly consistent comparison betvasen the results of both corpora. These new figures have been added between parentheses in all tables. They do not require any specific conment; therefore they merely serve as an illustration of the different design of both versions of the Cedergren-Sankoff program. The second feature I want to discuss concerns the type of verb. By this I do not refer to semantic categories, but to syntactic classes. For Spanish six classes can be distinguished : the non-pronominal transitive verbs with an expressed complement (NP, PP or S) (tiene una casa : he possesses a house), the rron-pronominal transitive verb without complement in surface (paga : he pays), the pronominal transitive verbs (se mata : he kills himself), the nonpronominal intransitive verbs (anda : he walks), the pronominal intransitive verbs (se muere : he dies), and the class constituted by SER and ESTAR, the copulas. In table 2 these classes come ordered according to the probability of having their grammatical subject postposed. The feature (+pro) appears to be the most salient one; the next important one is (-tr). By retaining the features (+pro) and (—tr) as the relevant ones I am interpreting the fact that verbs which present the features (+pro) present the highest probability, the verbs which are (+pro) and (-tr) the second highest, and the verbs which are (-pro) and (-tr) the third highest. The copulas sort of form the division line between the verbs of high probability (higher than .5) and those of low probability (lower than .5). Along the same lines it is interesting to see that within the verbs which are the least likely to have their subject postposed, the transitive verbs used 'intransitivally' - in traditional wording still present a higher probability than the 'real1 transitives.

62

Type of verb Ortega y Gasset (prose) Unamuno (poetry)

(+pro) (+tr)

(+pro) (-tr)

.64

.54

(-tr) 1. (.57)

(-pro) (-tr) .51

copula .47

(-pro) (-pro) (+tr) (-d.o.) (+tr) (4d.o.) .42

.41

(-t-tr) .72 (.43)

Table 2. Effect of the type of verb on the subject postposition. The following features are used to distinguish distinct verb classes : (pronominal) (transitive), (direct object) and (copula). The relevance of the feature (+pro) has already appeared in an earlier study of Unamuno's newspaper articles where the subject of a pronominal verb 4 follows the verb four times more than the subject of a non-proncminal verb . As is shown on table 2, the importance of the feature (-tr) is confirmed in Unamuno's poetry. In this poetic corpus I have not yet checked the relevance of the feature (+pro). Anyway, it can be stated that the actual results all bring confirmation of earlier partial analyses. It thus seems plausible to hypothesize that, whichever the literary genre, these syntactic features (+pro)(-tr), will favor the postposition of the subject. As a last feature I would like to discuss the correlation between the kind of introductory constituent and the subject position. By introductory constituent I mean the following classes, distinguished as much as possible on formal grounds, and partly on the basis of their grammatical function, too. Formally defined are the adverbial phrase, the prepositional phrase, the clitic pronoun ... also grammatically defined are the NP direct object, the PP direct object, the relative pronoun direct object, the sentential direct object, the NP predicative complement, and the NP attributive complement (to the subject or the object). The presence of a predicative complement before the verb is most likely to co-occur with a postposed subject. The predicative complement may stand alone or be accompanied by any other syntagm (PP, AdvP) . This high probability, of .73, thus applies to the copulas. The second most relevant openings are constituted by a PP preceded by an AdvP. When a sentence begins with a PP, either preceded by an AdvP or followed by a clitic pronoun, the subject can be expected to be in postposition. A direct object preceding the verb, be it NP or PP, alone or with other syntagms, triggers also the postposition of the subject, with a probability of .63. When the direct object appears as an entire sentence, the probability is still high : .61.

63

A sequence of at least two AdvP triggers postposition with a higher probability than a sequence of at least two PP's : .59 versus .55.

And with a

probability of .53, an AdvP followed by a clitic pronoun seems a little more relevant than just a PP, the last with a probability of .53. The feature weight of the sequence containing a PP followed by an AdvP approaches the limit of what can be called significative; the probability of having the subject postposed is no higher than .52.

ίs ο

>·
2 PP 1. .93 .92 (.54) (.51) (.49)

.59 . 55 . 53 .53 .52

Rel.Pro-(X) AdvP Attirib.-(X) Clitic 0

.41 . 39 .33 .25 .18

Clitic 0 .88 .86 (.48) ( . 4 7 )

Table 3. Effect of the introductors on the subject postpostion. (X) and (Y) indicate the facultative presence of other syntagms. Pred refers to the predicative complement. PP to the prepositional phrase, AdvP to the adverbial phrase, PP/NP to the prepositional phrase or the noun phrase which function as direct object, and S_ to the clause. The remaining introductory sequences are more likely to co-occur with subject anteposition.

The probability of having the subject anteposed is the

highest when there is no introductory syntagm at all (the probability figure here is .18). When it is constituted uniquely by a clitic or a sequence of clitics the anteposition is very likely, too : the probability of postposition is as low as .25.

Any attributive complement to an NP(be it subject or object) is not relevant for subject position.

This means that an NP introduced by COIID ('as') or

either a gerund or a participle separated from its head, do not influence the subject position.

The presence of only an AdvP before the verb is not to be

reckoned with, either. Whereas postposition appears to correlate highly with the anteposition of the direct object in the form of an NP, a PP or a S (clause), this is not the case for the relative clauses where the relative pronoun functions as direct object.

The relative pronoun, whether or not followed by other syntagms, seems

indifferent to subject position. Some time ago a rough analysis of the introductors in Unamuno's "Cancionero"

64

has given the results represented in table 3.

Being less complete (by

sion of the copulas, for instance), and less accurate (by collapsing all introductory sequences constituted by two or more constituents), those results can only be compared partially with the actual ones. For both materials the absence of introductors least favors postposition, and a clitic is assigned the second lowest probability of having the subject postposed.

Looking at the

probability of .93 for two or more introductors, it could be said that this falls in with the high probability of having a postposed subject when the introductory sequence is composed by a PP and a clitic, an Avdp an a PP, and the like. The fact that in the previous analysis the presence of an NP direct object has presented the highest feature weight (represented by the figure 1.), whereas in the actual analysis it got exceeded by three other types of introductors, is not significative, since the difference in the results seems mostly due to the relevance of the variables considered. Grammatical subject

implicit

postposed

anteposed

Ortega y Gasset

836(30,0%)

572(20,6%)

Unamuno

5139(58,9%) 1730(19,9%)

1375(49,4%) 2783 1844(21,2%) 8713

total

Table 4. Classification of the corpora in sentences without overt subject, sentences with postposed subject and sentences with anteposed subject. I would like to conclude with a global comparison of the prose and poetry corpora considered.

Needless to apply a chi-square to the figures of table

4 in order to measure the significance of equivalences and discrepancies. On the one hand, both in prose and in poetry, almost one fifth of the sentences has an overt subject in postposition.

On the other hand, another fifth

of the sentences has the grammatical subject anteposed in poetry, whereas up to half of the sentences has it anteposed in prose.

It might be the case that

this significant frequency difference of subject anteposition is characterise tic both for the literary genre and for the style of the author.

More inves-

tigation is needed in order to check whether the difference is due to the genre rather than the author, or vice versa. As for now, it can undoubtedly be stated that for both corpora, the one prosaic, the other poetic, the following features have a measurable effect upon the subject position : the sentence length, the type of verb and the opening of the sentence.

65

NOTES AND R E F E R E N C E S 1 ORTEGA Υ GASSET, Jose (1927) : "Esoiritu de la Letra", in : Obras Completas de Jose Ortega y Gasset (1966) Tono III. iiadrid : Revista de Occidente. UNAMUNO, Miguel de, 206 newspaper articles (1931-1936) published in GARCIA BLANCO (ed.) (1966) : Obras Completas : Miguel de Unamuno. Madrid : Escelicer. This corpus has been computerized by Prof. J. De Kock (Louvain). 2 CONTRERAS, Heles (1976) : A Theory of Word Order with Special Reference to Spanish. Amsterdam : North-Holland. 3 UNAMUNO, Miguel de (1928-1936) : "Cancionero", in : GARCIA BLANCO (ed.) (1964) : Obras Completas Tomo VI. Madrid : Escelicer. 4 DELBECQUE, Nicole (1974) : La colocacion del regente con los verbos pronominales en espanol, and VAN DEN EYNDE, Els (1974) : La posnosicion del regente en espanol. Memoires, University of Louvain.

L ' I N D I G E N O E L'ALLOGLOTTO NELL'ORDINE DELLE PAROLE DI UN IDIOMA DI FRONTIERA: L'ISTROROMANZO Pavao Tekaviio

1. L'ordine delle parole ( ü p ) l un dominio sintattico in cui, oltre ai fattori piü specificamente linguistic!, agiscono anche quelli stilistici: affettivitä, espressivitä ecc. D*altra parte, l'GP anche strettamente collegato con Is linguistica del testo (e del contesto), indirizzo concsciuto soprattutto sotto il nome tedesco di Textlinguistik. Kentre questi due campi di ricerche riuniscono quelli ehe potrebbero essere definiti i lati intra-linguistici del problema dell'OP, nel caso concrete del quäle vogliamo dare qui un breve panorama vi si aggiungono anche i fattori extra-linguistici: i possibili influsai tra due idiomi vicini ma appartenenti a famiglie linguistiche diverse. L'idioma a cui l dedicata la presente comunicazione, l'istroromanzo, infatti situato sulla cerniera slavo-romanza, nell*Istria sud-occidentale. Per il momento non disponiamo di studi sistematici sull'OP nei diversi dialetti veneti dell*Istria, ma dato lo stretto parallelisrao e l'affinitä tra l'istroromanzo e il veneto, crediamo di poter affermare ehe anche nel veneto istriano ci dovrebbero essere i medesimi influssi. Le ricerche future, dedicate specialmente a questOrdine di problemi, potranno certamente portare alia luce diversi nuovi casi interessant!. 2. Siccome i dialetti istroromanzi sono idiomi di ceppo neolatino, vi si possono prevedere le caratteristiche generali della collocazione delle parole romanza, sulla quäle perciö possiamo essere brevi. 2.1. In seguito alia perdita della declinazione sintetica si avuta la funzionalizzazione sintattica della posizione reciproca del SN^ (soggetto) e SNg (oggetto), e precisamente non soltanto nei casi in cui i tratti semantic! (ad esempio

68

[-t-umano] per SN, e SNp) permettono un'eventuale confusione (1), ma anche la dove essa δ logicamente esclusa ( 2 ) : (1) Lorenso vido Harowsa. (2) Al paron al liga al samer.

/ /

Marowsa vido Lorenso. Al samer al liga al paron.

L'ultima proposizione δ grammaticale, ma semanticamente inaccettabile. 2.2. Se bisogna spostare il S^, 1*OP si serve della trasformazione.enfatica mediante gli element! a zi - ke: (3) A zi kwisti i zogatoli ke ti ge dagi a to feyo ? La trasformazione enfatica non δ tuttavia generale, perch£ in alcuni casi (in cui concorrono l'accento e 1'intonazione) si ha la sola prolessi del SNgJ (4) La kukera i vuli kava ? (5) Kwista karno i voy, meyo.

% £ da rilevare tuttavia ehe in questi casi il predicate δ alia persona ehe esclude ogni possibile confusione.

2.3. La prolessi del SN^ accompagnata dalla ripresa con un sostituente atono non serve a topicalizzare il SNp ma il V: (6) Marowsa, Lorenso la vido. \ r) cosi anche nel caso della posposizione del SN- ο del SF alia fine della proposizione: (7) Al ge vuriva ben a sta mureda. 2.4. Gli elementi funzionali (preposizioni, congiunzioni) precedono sempre gli elementi retti da essi, come in genere nella sintassi romanza. Sarebbe banale citare degli esempi. 2.5. Per quanto riguarda la collocazione reciproca delle parti di un periodo, non ci sono differenze di rilievo tra 1'OP istroromanzo e quello di altri linguaggi neolatini: a) La proposizione temporale di solito precede la principale, ma pui anche seguirla: (8) Kwando k'al yo kap^y, al ge deys.

69

(9) AI zi liva kwando k ' a yera ankura skowro. La differenza nell'ordine reciproco delle due parti dipende dalle esigenze della topicalizzazione. b) Anche la proposizione causale puö precedere o seguire la principale: (10) Sikume ka la kaza la ga baliva, al nu s'wo fidä da inpisä la lowme a pitrwclgo... (esempio rovignese), (11) ... a befta masäli de noto, parki i ma'Ra de noto (sc. (gli insetti nella vigna). c) Helle stesse due posizioni puö trovarsi anche una proposizione finale: (12) Far disfantd el temporal i nostri veöi i bruzava un po de yerba benedita... (13) ..· kwalkedown i li metiva fora anke per fäseli vidi, sti koverturi. d) Kel periodo ipotetico ritroviamo la stessa duplicitä, e valga come unico esempio il seguente, ehe riunisce entrambe le posizioni: (14) Maestä» se vuy me dl la parola da no fa 'nente s'i ve fagi vidi owna roba, i ve mostrari sta roba. Protasi: se vuy me di la parola Apodosi: da no fa'nente

Apodosi: i ve mostrare" sta roba. Protasi: s*i ve fagi vidi owna roba.

3. Piu interessant! saranno senza dubbio i casi ehe maggiormente si scostano dalla sintassi romanza "normale" e ehe sono dovuti a determinate evoluzioni morfosintattiche, peculiari dei dialetti altoitaliani (nel nostro caso piu precisamente veneti) e dell*istroromanzo. Pensiamo anzitutto alia nota diminuzione dell*autonomia delle parole, risultato di piu processi (perdita della declinazione, riduzione generale delle parti finali delle parole variabili, tendenza all'analiticitä, cioe" prevalenza dei mezzi sintagmatici su quelli paradigmati-

70

ci e c c « ) . Una conseguenza di quest'evoluzione sono le forme atone del sostituente personale ehe accompagnano obbligatoriaraente il verboj un'altra conseguenza, su cui ci soffermeremo un po* di piu, e1 la particella a, ehe appare in due funzioni strettaraente imparentate: essa furiziona da SN, nei verbi ehe non ammettono un agente ("impersonali" o "unipersonali") (a) e anticipa il SN-, (con altri verbi) se esso δ invertito. Lsempi: a) a zi viro, a pyow, a me par impuseybile, a nu zi yowato ecc., b) A zi sta own dey k'a se yo katd. kwatro zermani, A se meto a ma'n anke Bara Burtolo (e centinaia di altri esempi). Del tutto analoghi sono gli esempi rovignesi: a zi nwoto, skowro da lowna, a gira frido, a gira la own vyecO ka paskiva 2 su li grwote, ecc. La particella a non va confusa con il sostituente personale eil, ehe spesso accompagna il verbo anche se il bN, precede imraediatamente e ehe nell*eloquio rapido puo essere realizzato come /a/; ad esempio: (15) Al mur6 al se viseyna un po... (nel parlare rapido: /almur.e'asevisoynaumpo/· La differenzs risalta beninteso nettamente nel femminile ο nel plurale: (16) La raureda la ven dowta vargu^uza... (17) Kwando ke i kwatro araeygi i zi zeydi vi... La vocale del relative ke e dell'omofona congiunzione si elide davanti alia particella _a siecht ne nasce la sequenza /ka/, in cui la particella δ tuttavia presente, come rivelato da semplici procedimenti trasformazionali: (18) I te deygi k*a nu zi viro. = I te deygi: a nu zi viro. (19) Kwil k'a yera la, al ge dey. = A yera Id owno, e al ge dey. Visto ehe l*apertura della /e/ protonica in /a/ έ sporadi-

71

camente presente in tutti i dialetti istroromanzi, ed e" massiccia appunto nel rovignese, l*etimologia della particella a non presenta problem!: essa δ geneticamente identica all'italiano antico egli, ei, £* e al francese il (cf. ad eserapio a zi viro - egli e" yero - il est vrai) e si riconnette al sostituente tardolatino ILLU. 4. Dalle ricerche da noi condotte in precedenza e pubblicate 4 in altra sede risulta assai bene rappresentato e tipico per l 'istroromanzo il non-accordo del participio (parte del SV) con il bN posposto, e precisamente non soltanto Sl^ - come § comune nelle lingue letterarie della Romania centrale - ma anche Sl·^. L'esernpio-guida per quest 'ultimo caso puo essere questo: \ •r»

(20) A zi vi'now i preti.

^

v61111"110 i preti.

Va precisato ehe il non-accordo concerne soltanto le persone Λ ft dei non-interlocutori (la 5 e la 6 ) e, all*interno di esse, interessa solo il participio, non l*ausiliare, giaccb.6 nessun verbo in nessun paradigma di qualsiasi dialetto istroromanzo distingue formalmente la 3a dalla 6a persona. La forma zi vale dunque tanto *δ* quanto 'sono' (essi). l\on sar privo di interesse confrontare l'accordo istroromanzo con quello dell'italiano letterario; SN, + V: SV + SK^: SN2 + SV: SV +· SNp!

Istroromanzo : I preti z i viliowdi. A zi vi .ow i preti. La kaza i (la) ye vindowda. I ye vindow l a kaza.

Accordo: + Accordo: Accordo: -f· Accordo: -

dell'italiano letterario, al contrario, si ha l*accordo in tutti e tre i primi casi, mentre il non-accordo δ limitato normalmente al quarto caso (SV + SN2)· I dati statistic! per i due maggiori dialetti istroromanzi fanno vedere una netta prevalenza del non-accordo sull'accordo: nei material! dignanesi da noi esaminati si hanno 25 casi di non-accordo contro 6 casi di accordo (approssimativamente

72

4 : 1 ) , mentre nei material! rovignesi la proporzione δ di 53 casi di non-accordo contro 19 casi di accordo (su per giu 3 : 1). Dato lo strettissimo parallelismo fra le due varieta dell'istroromanzo, la differenza tra le proporzioni non puo essere dovuta a cause di ordine linguistico, ma sar con ogni probabilit in relazione al genere del materiale di cui ci aiamo serviti. Mentre per il dignanese - essendo stati pubblicati meno testi in questa varieta - abbiamo lavorato principalmente su testi di carattere spontaneo, da noi raccolti in loco, per il rovignese, il quale vanta molti ρΐύ testi pubblicati, abbiamo usato precipuamente un corpus costituito da testi scritti. II non-accordo citato non δ ignoto nel dominio veneto, mentre δ pressoche* assente dai testi friulani: infatti, nel materiale friulano da noi esaminato la proporzione tra 1'accordo e il non-accordo va da 100 : 0 (nei testi pubblicati nelle annate spogliate della rivista Sot la nape) fino a 78 ! 22 (nelle Reliquie ladine pubblicate da J· Cavalli). Riunendo tutti i risultati, la proporzione viene ad essere all'incirca questa: 90 % di casi di accordo contro 10 % di casi di non-accordo.' II friulano δ dunque praticamente escluso come fonte primaria ο secondaria del non-accordo istroromanzo. Anzi, i pochi casi di non-accordo nei testi friulani saranno dovuti ad influssi veneti, forse anche istroromanzi: probabilmente non δ casuale ehe il maggiore numero dei casi di non-accordo si abbia nel tergestino e nel muggisano, οίοδ nelle due varieta friulane piu lontane dal nucleo friulano e piu "immerse" nell'ambiente veneto. Dagli spogli risulta una chiara tendenza a far dipendere 1'accordo del participio dall'OP, piu precisamente dalla collocazione reciproca del SN e del SV, qualunque sia la funzione del SN (soggetto-oggetto) e q u a l u n q u e dei due ausiliari venga adoperato: 1'accordo tende ad essere riservato alia sequenza SN - SV ed eliminate dalla sequenza SV - SN t a n t o c o n ' e s s e r e ' q u a n t o c o n 'av e r e'. II participio in tal caso assume la forma non marcata delle categorie del genere e del numero (maschile singola-

73

r e ) , ehe δ come provvisoria, mentre il SW, posposto aggiunge la necessaria precisazione. oenza poter per adesso constatare in ehe modo, siamo del parere ehe 1'altissima percentuale dell'accordo e la distinzione formale tra la 3a e la 6a persona nel friulano da un lato, la prevalenza del non-accordo e l'identit totale della 3 e della 6 persona nell'istroromanzo (e in misura un po' minore anche nel veneto) dall'altro, siano reciprocamente collegate. Q

Q

5· Mentre i fenomeni finora esaminati possono essere di origine purainente neolatina, dunque interna, la caratteristica di cui intendiamo parlare in questo paragrafo non si spiega nell'ambito della sintassi degli idiomi romanzi, almeno per quanto concerne il nostro caso. Si tratta dell'inserzione di un awerbio (o una parola funzionalmente affine) tra il sostituente personale atono e il verbo, collocazione normalmente irapossibile nelle lingue romanze. Jicco alcuni esempi: Q

(21) Mey i me magari vergo'ni un po. (22) La lo kwazi impiniyso. (23) ...la se un po vergoiia... (24) La bala sanpatika la va aturno, ke la nu se "nanka vido. 9 (25) ... i nu ma /Ranka rakurdivo. (eserapio rovignese) (26) A nu sa 'nanka mana stasira? ( " " )10 Come rilevato nei nostri lavori citati, tali inserzioni sono rarissime nell'italiano antico (e limitate soltanto a pure) e non sono frequenti nerameno altrove (alcuni casi ci sono nelle lingue iberoromanze). K owio dunque ehe quest i idiomi non possono essere la fonte dell*inserzione nell'istroromanzo. Inoltre, va sottolineato ehe gli esempi istroromanzi si trovano nei due maggiori dialetti (e con somma probabilit anche negli altri), nel materiale antico e contemporaneo, nei dialoghi del tutto spontanei e nei testi redatti e stampati. Quest i fatti provano ehe l'inserzione non δ un fenomeno marginale ma costante ed integrate nel sisteina. L'unica spiegazione possibile del fenomeno istroromanzo δ 1'influsso dell'adstrato slavo (croatο, sloveno), nel qu le l'inserzione analoge δ

74

non soltanto possibile ma addirittura normale e regolare. Basta confrontare gli esempi istroromanzi con le relative traduzioni in serbocroato: (21a) (22a) (2Ja) (24-a) (25a) (26a)

Ja se mozda malo stidim. Una ga gotovo napuni. ...ona se malo stidi... Kuglica se vrti uokolo ( t a k o ) , da se niti ne vidi. ...nisam se ni sjetio. Zar se uop) · "II non-accordo tra il predicate compost con *essere* ed il soggetto invertito nei dialetti istroromanzi". Studia Romanica et Anglica Zagrabiensia 23' 161 - 194. (1969)· "Testi istroromanzi dignanesi". Travaux de Linguistique et de Litte"rature publics par le Centre de Philologie et de Litte'ratures Romanes de l'University de Strasbourg VII: 275-303. (1972): Grammatica storica dell*italiano.Bologna:il Mulino. (1976): "Historioske komponente istroromanske sintakse". Comunicazione alia Conferenza internazionale sulla sintassi storica, Krakow 22-23 marzo 1976 (in corso di stampa negli Atti).

THE STRUCTURE OF MORPHOLOGICAL

FAMILIES

H . Joachim Neuhaus To Marvin Spevack, on his

1.

50th b i r t h d a y

Language typology has been morphological typology u n t i l q u i t e

r e c e n t l y , when syntactic q u e s t i o n s of word order and word order change became more prominent in typological s t u d i e s . But whereas any natural language has a syntactic s t r u c t u r e , not every language has a developed morphology as a separate word-formation system. This is why morphological properties are per se language specific and not u n i v e r s a l . As the longwinded 19th century debate about morphological types has shown, nearly all word-formation systems at all

languages - if they use

- employ various methods or struc-

tural types s i m u l t a n e o u s l y . This makes for a greater v a r i e t y and complexity of structural r e l a t i o n s , and lends a certain plausib i l i t y to the well-known dictum of BLOOMFIELD ( 1 9 3 3 : 2 0 7 ) : . . , languages d i f f e r more in morphology t h a n in syntax. The variety is so great that no simple scheme w i l l c l a s s i f y languages as to their morphology. 1.1.

Some typologists have tackled t h i s profuse situation stat-

i s t i c a l l y . There have been several suggestions for statistical indices ( e . g . GREENBERG 1 9 5 4 a , KRUPA 1 9 6 5 ) . But for the purpose of typological d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n these indices have turned out to be of rather limited v a l u e . Calculations from running t e x t s show a relatively homogeneous behaviour for d i f f e r e n t

languages.

To give one example: a 2.2 ratio of morphemes to words in text material ( ' i n d e x of a n a l y s i s ' ) from Y o k u t s , a C a l i f o r n i a n Indian language, is according to a remark by GREENBERG ( 1 9 5 H b : 2 0 0 ) : ... j u s t about the same as for all other languages (to be s u r e , a relatively small group) that I have examined. In this respect, t h e n , Yokuts is normal. The impression of normality with s t a t i s t i c a l indices is, due to the sampling method. Q u i t e d i f f e r e n t

of course,

from s y n t a c t i c con-

structions, the potential complexity of morphological structures is very much reduced in actual language u s e . W o r k i n g w i t h Yokuts i n f o r m a n t s , NEWMAN ( 1 9 5 M : 8 5 ) reported t h i s

80

phenomenon, and similar experiences are obvious with other languages as well: As part of my f i e l d procedure I invented many such complex words, which my informant d u t i f u l l y translated, though with obvious amusement. These heavily s u f f i x e d words were grammatically u n o b j e c t i o n a b l e . But they were creations of a structurally oriented linguist, not those of native speakers who collectively impose selective limits upon the structural potentialities of their language. 1.2. Even less s a t i s f y i n g results are obtained if informants are encouraged to venture intuitive opinions on morphological matters. Again there has been a pertinent observation from BLOOMFIELD (1933: 2 0 8 ) : One soon learns that one cannot look to the speaker for an answer, since they do not practice morphologic analysis; if one bothers them with such questions, they give inconsistent or silly answers. 1.3. What makes the situation even more complicated is the familiar phenomenon of a language-dependant analytic capability. Analytic attitudes towards word-formations vary considerably even between closely related languages such as English and German. SAPIR (1921: 195) made some interesting comments on these d i f f e r ences : Such words as credible, certitude, intangible are entirely welcome in English because each represents a unitary, wellnuanced idea and because their formal analysis (cred-ible, cert-itude, in-tang-ible) is not a necessary act of the unconscious mind (cred-, cert-, and tang- have no real existence in English comparable to that of good- in goodness). . . . In German, however, polysyllabic words strive to analyse themselves into significant elements. ... Latin-German words like kredibel "credible" and French-German words like reüssieren "to succeed" o f f e r nothing that the unconscious mind could assimilate to its customary method of feeling and handling words. It is as though this unconscious mind said: "I am perfectly willing to accept kredibel if you will j u s t tell me what you mean by kred-." All these empirical data are still poorly understood from a psycholinguistic point of view, and very few systematic experimental investigations have dealt with this problem. 1.4. Given these general observations one has to expect that the study of morphological typology should turn out to be rather abstract and inaccessible. Abstract, because underlying systems

81

have to be reconstructed as highly complex structural resources with only relatively slender use of these resources as empirical evidence. This is why prima facie evidence has quite often led to oversimplifications in morphological descriptions. Inaccessible, because crucial empirical evidence is hard to get and successful data preparation involves huge q u a n t i t i e s of morphological constructions. Computer f i l e s with more than 200,000 word entries had to be searched and analysed in order to be able to demonstrate the non-planarity of morphotactic cycles in English s u f f i x a t i o n ( c f . NEUHAUS 1 9 7 5 ) . 2. For a long time the standard pattern for the structural description of word-formation systems has been a linear ordering theory of morpheme classes. This linear ordering is implicit in HYMES' 'positional analysis' ( 1 9 5 5 ) , or in STOCKWELL 1 s terminological suggestion of 'morphotactics' ( c f . HILL 1958: 6 8 ) . Nearly all work with so-called polysynthetic languages still uses this frame, and there is a tendency to think it to be adequate in general. It can also be found in more recent works on English and French that use "primary and secondary' derivation theories ( e . g . STEIN 1971). The linearity condition was strong enough to lead CHAPIN (1970) in his M . I . T . dissertation to postulate an epicyclic ordering. 2.1. In the following there will be arguments for the abandonment of linear morphotactics, which is an empirical matter, and arguments for the adoption of a graph-theoretic framework, which is a theoretical suggestion. Graph-theory lends itself to a rigorous definition of somewhat intuitive structural concepts such as 'morphological f a m i l y ' , but more important, there are quite useful graph-theoretic properties that can enter into complexity measurements and typological subgroupings ( c f . NEUHAUS, forthcoming a) . What it means to use a graph-theoretic framework can be explained quite easily, without too many technicalities. English prefix-formations, constructions such as undecomposed, irreplaceable, etc., can be used for a nonlinearity proof. Figure (1) gives an incidence matrix for some prefixes. This is meant as

82 χ

0·

un-

10

0·

in2-

11

10

l·

re-

11

11

10

1-

sub-

ΙΟ

00

10

10

0·

en-

10

00

10

00

00

0·

} strictly ordered

} reduplicating

} terminal

Figure (1)

be-

Incidence matrix for six English prefixes

a minimal notation to show their respective morphotactic interrelationship. A corresponding graph - a good drawing of an essentially planar graph - is given as Figure ( 2 ) . The prefixes unand in 2 - are shown to be strictly ordered. The '10' notation in the respective cell of the incidence matrix allows for formations such as: uninf a liability ( Ί ' ) but excludes a reverse pattern: *_in-un- ( ' 0 " ) . This is a purely morphotactic constraint There are no semantic arguments that could be used since both prefixes coincide semantically in their strong tendency to denote contrary opposition.

Both i n 2 - and un- do not reduplicate:

Ό · ' . There is j u s t one un-un- formation we know of and that is used in a textbook ( H I L L 1958: 1 3 7 ) . It

should have earned a star

by now. Reduplication ( ' ! · ' ) is possible with re- and sub- as well as with a few other prefixes:

sub-subdivision , sub-subcon-

tract , e t c . . Terminal prefixes such as en- and be- close possible prefix strings. They take the last position. Given the matrix notation only zero values (' 0 ' ) are admissible as second digits. 2.2.

There are, of course, many other morphotactic properties

that can be studied in detail once morphological data have been prepared in this graph-theoretic framework. A most interesting structural property of all English prefixes is their systematic 2 interrelation. Together they form a totally connected graph. Given a good drawing of the English prefix system there is thus no isolated p r e f i x , but there are three structurally d i f f e r e n t

83

en-

Figure ( 2 )

Graph for s i x E n g l i s h p r e f i x e s

classes of p r e f i x e s : cyclic p r e f i x e s , which have a set of adm i s s i b l e immediate predecessors as w e l l as a set of admissible immediate successors, and initial and terminal p r e f i x e s , which have only one of these sets each: Cyclic prefixes { } Π { }

Initial prefixes Π { }

Terminal p r e f i x e s {

}

Π

2 . 3 . The complexity of a system can either be studied from an overall perspective or from the point of view of one of its ele m e n t s . The notion 'morphological f a m i l y 1 belongs to the latter t y p e . The immediate prefix neighbours of a prefix may be said to form its core f a m i l y . If examples from the fragment of Figure (2)

are used the following core f a m i l y for re- emerges: predecessors:

u n - r e - movable i r - r e - claimable

84

successors:

r e - u n - fold r e - s u b - merge r e - b e - hold r e - e n - list

Furthermore there are reduplicating cases as r e - r e - form, where a systematic phonological d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between a weak and a strong p r e f i x realization occurs. Of course, that also has semantic implications, but it does not a f f e c t the underlying morphotactic regularities. 2.4.

Prefixes may be ordered according to core f a m i l y size. Dif-

ferences in numerical complication can then be studied and indices for the degree of connectivity of an overall system can be calculated and compared. A rather straightforward presentation may use matrices such as Figure (3) for this purpose. »

«

un-

• r e—

sub-

.

*

.

. •

.

en-

.

be-

·

. ·

·

*

.

in 2 -

· *

4

.

3

·

2

. ·

5

^ 0

number of immediate 4

3

2

1

0

successors

number of immediate predecessors Figure (3) 2.5.

Connectivity profile for six English prefixes

In the larger framework of typological comparisons struc-

tural descriptions of this type will lead to insights into the complexity of morphological systems, and it

should be more mean-

ingful to have a typology of underlying systems than to have mere statistics on the average use of the resources available in texts.

85

NOTES 1

2

Here, as in the following only morphotactic well-formedness characteristics are dealt w i t h . On the relation between morphotactic constraints and semantic and phonological constraints cf. NEUHAUS ( 1 9 7 5 ) and (forthcoming b) . i n 2 - is the negating prefix ( i n v a r i a n t , i l l e g i t i m a t e , impolTte , etc . ) . A more comprehensive description of the evidence available for this structural discovery is in progress.

References BLOOMFIELD, Leonard ( 1 9 3 3 ) : Language. Chicago. C H A P I N , Paul ( 1 9 7 0 ) : "On a f f i x a t i o n in E n g l i s h " . BIERWISCH, M a n f r e d / H E I D O L P H , Karl ( e d s . ) : Progress in linguistics. The Hague . 51-63. G R E E N B E R G , Joseph ( 1 9 5 4 a ) : "A q u a n t i t a t i v e approach to the morphological typology of language". SPENCER, R. ( e d . ) : Method and perspective in anthropology. Papers in honor of Wilson de Wallis. M i n n e a p o l i s . 1 9 2 - 2 2 0 . ---

( 1 9 5 4 b ) : HOIJER ( e d . ) : 2 0 0 .

H I L L , Archibald ( 1 9 5 8 ) : Linguistic s t r u c t u r e s . From sound to sentence in E n g l i s h . New York. HOIJER, H. ( e d . ) ( 1 9 5 4 ) : Language in c u l t u r e . Conference on the interrelations of language and other aspects of c u l t u r e . Chicago. HYMES, D. H. ( 1 9 5 5 ) : "Positional analysis of categories. A frame for reconstruction". Word 11: 10-23. KRUPA, Viktor ( 1 9 6 5 ) : "On q u a n t i f i c a t i o n of typology". Linguistics 12: 31-36. NEUHAUS, H. Joachim ( 1 9 7 5 ) : "Morphotaktische Z y k l e n " . R I X , Helmut ( e d . ) : Flexion und Wortbildung. Akten der V. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen G e s e l l s c h a f t , Regensburg, 9.-14. September 1973. Wiesbaden. 2 2 0 - 2 3 1 . (forthcoming a ) : "Morphotactical complexity". CHATMAN, S . / ECO, U. ( e d s . ) : Collected papers of the f i r s t congress of the International Association of Semiotic Studies. The Hague (forthcoming b ) : "Wortbildungssemantik". BREKLE, E . / KASTOVSKY, D. ( e d s . ) : Festschrift für Hans Marchand zum 70. Geburtstag. Tübingen. NEWMAN, Stanley ( 1 9 5 4 ) : "Semantic problems in grammatical systems and lexemes: a search for method". HOIJER ( e d . ) : 82-91. SAPIR, Edward ( 1 9 2 1 ) : Language. An introduction to the study of speech. New York. STEIN, Gabriele ( 1 9 7 1 ) : Primäre und sekundäre A d j e k t i v e im Französischen und Englischen. Tübingen.

2.

SYNTAX UND G E N E R A T I V E T H E O R I E

ON A NOT SO PERFECTLY A R G U E D D E S C R I P T I O N OF THE P R E S E N T AND THE PRESENT PERFECT I N E N G L I S H

H e i n z W. Viethen

I n her d i s s e r t a t i o n and in a f u r t h e r c o n t r i b u t i o n , Mary Jane GALLAGHER (I970a and 1970b) deals - among other t h i n g s - w i t h p r o b l e m s of tense in E n g l i s h and in p a r t i c u l a r , w i t h c h a r a c t e r i s t i c features o f t h e u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e s o f the Present and the Present Perfect. - In my paper, some aspects of her invest i g a t i o n a r e o u t l i n e d a n d examined c r i t i c a l l y ; f i n a l l y , some suggestions f o r a somewhat d i f f e r e n t approach w i l l be advanced.* 1. W i t h i n the framework of an a n a l y s i s of have and the Perfect in E n g l i s h , Mary GALLAGHER (1970b: 63) reaches the f o l l o w i n g c o n c l u s i o n s (among o t h e r s ) : F i r s t , Tense need not be f i l l e d in the deep s t r u c t u r e : some Verbs must be tenseless [: s t a t i v e s and h a b i t u a l s are those Verbs that have no Tense in the deep s t r u c t u r e (I970b: 63)3· Second, there is no need to generate both Adverbs of T i m e and Tense, s i n c e the l a t t e r is p r e d i c t able from the former, but not conversely. These two c l a i m s - that s t a t i v e s and h a b i t u a l s are tenseless and that tense is p r e d i c t a b l e from adverbs of t i m e - are c l o s e l y l i n k e d , and I w o u l d l i k e to have a closer look at G a l l a g h e r ' s j u s t i f i c a t i o n of them. 1.1.

It was Chomsky who reported a s u g g e s t i o n by B a r b a r a H a l l [Partee] that each element of the A u x i l i a r y has associated w i t h it c e r t a i n characteri s t i c A d v e r b i a l s that may (or, in the case of Present tense, m u s t ) cooccur w i t h t h i s A u x i l i a r y element, ... (CHOMSKY 19&5: 216, fn. 23). T a k i n g t h i s suggestion to mean that the presence of t i m e adverbs be dependent on Tense, it f o l l o w s for Mary G a l l a g h e r that ''Tense [must] be o b l i g a t o r y wherever t i m e adverbs are allowed" (1970a: 220). A s s u m i n g f u r t h e r m o r e that r i g h t now is the proper a d v e r b i a l for the element P resent, M. G a l l a g h e r concludes: ' ^ Present chose r i g h t now and o n l y r i g h t now or i ts synonyms, we should expect 1) and 2) to be synonymous on a r e a d i n g , w h i c h they are. (1) John is s i g n i n g the d e c l a r a t i o n of Independence. (2) John is s i g n i n g the d e c l a r a t i o n of Independence r i g h t now. (GALLAGHER 19?0a: 220f.) Not synonymous, however, are sentences l i k e the s t a t i v e s mentioned under ( 3 ) , or l i k e the h a b i t u a l s under (it) (ex. taken from GALLAGHER 1970a: 2 2 1 ) : (3a) John is a man. (3b) John is a man r i g h t now. (4a) John works hard. John works hard r i g h t now.

90

The d i f f e r e n c e between the f i r s t and the second member of each p a i r is that between reference to an u n c h a n g i n g and to a temporary s i t u a t i o n , r e s p e c t i v e l y , w i t h r i g h t now s i g n a l l i n g " i m p e n d i n g , or at least p o s s i b l e , change" (1970a: 221). - To cut a long story s h o r t , Mary G a l l a g h e r decides that it is g e n e r a l l y p r e f e r a b l e to base the choice of a p a r t i c u l a r tense on the occurrence of the a p p r o p r i a t e a d v e r b ( s ) . A c c o r d i n g l y , sentences w i t h what Mary G a l l a g h e r c a l l s an " o r i g i n a l " present tense, i.e. sentences w i t h the deep s t r u c t u r e element Present, must p e r m i t the presence of r i g h t now in surface s t r u c t u r e . However, if the i n t r o d u c t i o n of r i g h t now r e s u l t s in a change of m e a n i n g (as in (kb)) or in a f a i r l y awkward sentence (as in ( 3 b ) ) , the respective verbs are assumed to be "without tense in u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e " (I970a: 2 2 2 ) . The a l t e r n a t i v e approach - to s t i c k to the procedure suggested in CHOMSKY 1965 and to delete r i g h t now, when it occurs together w i t h s t a t i v e s or h a b i t u a l s - is not taken, as such a m e a n i n g - c h a n g i n g t r a n s f o r m a t i o n is not considered to be des i r a b l e . 1.2. Before we mention other data w h i c h m i g h t support the choice of G a l l a g h e r ' s a l t e r n a t i v e , we would l i k e to comment f u r t h e r on the choice of r i g h t now as an adverb of t i m e to be associated w i t h the element Present in deep s t r u c t u r e . C l e a r l y , Mary G a l l a g h e r did not read c a r e f u l l y that passage from CHOMSKY 1965, w h i c h p r o v i d e d her w i t h the "Tense chooses Adverb"-approach and w h i c h we quoted above. Where our q u o t a t i o n stops, Chomsky goes on: and the characteristic Adverbials of P r o g r e s s i v e [ m y emphasis] do occur w i t h the verbs own, u n d e r s t a n d , know, etc. ( c f . "I know t h e answer r i g h t n o w [ m y emphasis]," a l o n g s i d e o f " I know t h e answer"), a l t h o u g h ... (CHOMSKY 1965: 216, fn. 23). If Chomsky's c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of r i g h t now as " a d v e r b i a l of progressive" is correct, it is s m a l l wonder that sentences l i k e (3a) and (3b) or Cta) and (**b) cannot be synonymous, as s t a t i v e s and h a b i t u a l s can o n l y take the Progressive under special and very r e s t r i c t e d circumstances, as can e a s i l y be seen from Schopf's i n v e s t i g a t i o n s , for example (cf. SCHÖPF 1963 and 1969). It s h o u l d be obvious that - t a k i n g r i g h t now - G a l l a g h e r chose the wrong adverb for p r o v i n g her p o i n t . Of course, t h i s conclusion is not s u f f i c i e n t to refute her b a s i c argument, namely that s t a t i v e s and h a b i t u a l s have no tense in deep s t r u c t u r e , as even the i n t r o d u c t i o n of adverbs l i k e at present or c u r r e n t l y i n t o sentences l i k e (3a) or (ta) does not r e s u l t in synonymy w i t h these: (3c) *?John is a man at present. (3d) *?John is a man c u r r e n t l y . (J»c) *?John works hard at present.

91

(J4d) 1.3.

*?John works hard c u r r e n t l y .

As a f u r t h e r j u s t i f i c a t i o n for the c l a i m t h a t there are sentences w i t h -

out t e n s e - s p e c i f i c a t i o n in deep s t r u c t u r e , Mary G a l l a g h e r adduces sentences where the m a i n verb cannot appear w i t h a past t i m e a d v e r b , a l t h o u g h the m a i n c l a u s e as w e l l as an embedded r e l a t i v e c l a u s e show the m o r p h o l o g i c a l i n d i c a t i o n s of the past tense. One of these examples is (5): (5)

The man who answered the telephone was H e n r y ' s b r o t h e r (*last week).

Due to the u n a c c e p t a b i 1 i t y of the a d v e r b i a l l a s t week, (5) cannot c o n t a i n an " o r i g i n a l " p a s t . It a l s o cannot be s a i d to c o n t a i n an o r i g i n a l present (as d e f i n e d by G a l l a g h e r ) , s i n c e a present t i m e a d v e r b i a l is not acceptable e i t h e r , as can be seen from sentence ( 6 ) : (6)

*The man who answered the telephone was H e n r y ' s brother at present.

The most c o n v e n i e n t e x p l a n a t i o n is a g a i n to assume t h a t the m a i n c l a u s e , w h i c h i s s t a t i v e , i s tenseless i n deep s t r u c t u r e a n d that t h e surface structure past e n d i n g on the m a i n verb is due to the ( d e l e t e d ) past t i m e adverb of the embedded r e l a t i v e c l a u s e (cf. (7a)

(7a)):

The man who answered the telephone yesterday was H e n r y ' s b r o t h e r .

We m i g h t , t h e r e f o r e , be i n c l i n e d to accept G a l l a g h e r ' s tenseless represent a t i o n of s t a t i v e s in deep s t r u c t u r e , if there were no sentences l i k e (8a): (8a)

The woman who answered the phone was H e n r y ' s g i r l f r i e n d l a s t week.

I t s h o u l d become obvious from sentences l i k e (8a) t h a t i t i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t to p o s t u l a t e tenseless, and that means a d v e r b l e s s , d e e p - s t r u c t u r e representat i o n s f o r s t a t i v e s , w i t h o u t i n d i c a t i n g a n y f u r t h e r what k i n d o f state i s i n volved: whether i t lasts f o r " ( n e a r l y ) a l l time" a s i n g e n e r i c sentences, c f . (9)

A horse is a mammal.

or whether the state is f a i r l y permanent, at least a f t e r it has been a c h i e v e d , as for example in ( 1 0 a ) , (10a)

John's father is t a l l ,

or whether it is not so permanent, as in (11)

Paul is angry.

One may of course w i s h to c l a i m t h a t such d i s t i n c t i o n s as m i g h t be involved in the states mentioned in (!0a) and ( 1 1 ) are o n l y based on our knowledge of the w o r l d : we j u s t know that anger does not l a s t very long, w h i l e t a l l people w i l l never become s m a l l e r .

However, it is not o n l y the case that ( 1 1 )

p e r m i t s the a d d i t i o n of at present, w h i l e such an adverb w o u l d at least be f e l t to be very c u r i o u s in the case of (!0a); we must also p o i n t out that such d i f f e r e n c e s w h i c h o b t a i n w i t h respect to the d u r a b i l i t y of states are

92

relevant for the use and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Progressive Form as w e l l e.g. SCH PF 1963).

(cf.

I. 1 ». That it is not completely s u f f i c i e n t to assume the existence of tenseless s t a t i v e s a l s o becomes obvious from another example adduced by Mary G a l l a g h e r in order to prove her p o i n t , namely sentence ( 1 2 ) : (12) The foul-tempered dog hid under the table. She does not w i s h to derive t h i s sentence "either from structures w i t h a verb in the r e l a t i v e clause that is an o r i g i n a l present [as in (I3a)] or from one that is an o r i g i n a l past [as in (13b)]" (GALLAGHER 1970a: 223): (13a) The dog that is foul-tempered hid under the table yesterday (when he was sweet-tempered and even timorous). (13b) The dog that was foul-tempered hid under,the t a b l e yesterday (and emerged, a f t e r some s o u l - s e a r c h i n g , as the m i l d creature now before you). D e r i v i n g (12) from e i t h e r (I3a) or 03b) does of course i n v o l v e the theoretical d i f f i c u l t y that a m e a n i n g - b e a r i n g element is erased in R e l a t i v e Clause Reduction (cf. GALLAGHER 1970a: 223), but on the other hand, assuming the (stative) r e l a t i v e clause to be w i t h o u t tense does not avoid that problem by any means! It o n l y obscures the problem w h i c h consists in the fact that statives do not form a u n i f o r m class at a l l , as should become obvious from sentence (1Ό, which is - s u p e r f i c i a l l y - e n t i r e l y p a r a l l e l to (12): ΟΌ The s h o r t - t a i l e d dog hid under the table. It is "knowledge of the world" a g a i n t h a t dogs can be foul-tempered today and good-natured tomorrow, w h i l e s h o r t - t a i l e d dogs remain s h o r t - t a i l e d as long as they l i v e . Nevertheless I should c l a i m that o n l y in the case of ( \ k ) can the embedded clause w h i c h undergoes R e l a t i v e C l a u s e Reduction j u s t i f i a b l y be assumed to be tenseless. As opposed to (1 1 *), (12) must be derived from somet h i n g l i k e (I3a) or ( I 3 b ) , in order to e x p l a i n the a m b i g u i t y of the adjective in (12) w h i c h otherwise remains unrepresented. 1.5. So f a r , I have not s a i d much about a j u s t i f i c a t i o n of Mary G a l l a g h e r ' s assumption that temporal adverbs determine tense and that it cannot be done the other way round. That is due to the fact that I am not at all c e r t a i n whether t h i s a l t e r n a t i v e is r e a l l y i m p o r t a n t . What is important, however, is her c l a i m that c e r t a i n sentences do not have tense in t h e i r deep-structure r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . B a s i c a l l y , that c l a i m i s j u s t i f i e d , a l t h o u g h - a s i n d i c a t e d above - it is not s u f f i c i e n t to a t t r i b u t e tenselessness to a l l s t a t i v e s and habituals without any further q u a l i f i c a t i o n s .

93

Furthermore, we should say that it is i m p o s s i b l e to avoid consideration of sentences l i k e (15) and (16): (15) The Incas were a h i g h l y c i v i l i z e d people. (BALD 1972: 62) (16) Horses have always been mammals. C l e a r l y , these cannot be a n y t h i n g but tenseless in t h e i r deep s t r u c t u r e , as they are not only s t a t i v e , but also v a l i d for " a l l time". On the other hand, they do not e a s i l y conform to G a l l a g h e r ' s r u l e of Present I n s e r t i o n , w h i c h is supposed to account for the appearance of the morphological Present in all those tenseless and habitual sentences, where (surface) tense is not determined by the tense of a preceding clause. W h i l e the past tense in (15) m i g h t be derived from a deleted r e l a t i v e clause 1 ike who existed from ... to ... , such a s o l u t i o n is not open to sentences l i k e (16). There, tense could o n l y be derived from a m a t r i x sentence l i k e (17) It Tense/Aspect ( + A d v e r b i a l ) be the case w i t h a t e n s e l e s s embedding of the sort horses be mamma Is. Whether such a tense-carrying deep-structure m a t r i x could not also be employed for a l l statives and h a b i t u a l s w h i c h do not have tense i n t h e i r own deep structure clause, m i g h t be a p o i n t for f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n . 2. Statives do not e a s i l y take temporal adverbs, but they are not u n i q u e in t h i s . The same a p p l i e s for example to the E n g l i s h Present Perfect, which is also considered by G a l l a g h e r , and q u i t e e x t e n s i v e l y , too. One of her b a s i c c l a i m s is that the structures of possessive and present perfect sentences are not o n l y connected through a continuous h i s t o r i c a l development, w h i c h is conf i r m e d by E n g l i s h h i s t o r i c a l grammars, but that such a connection can also be established for present-day E n g l i s h . Her aim is "to analyse one type of perip h r a s t i c perfect" (GALLAGHER 1970b: 52), namely what she c a l l s the "perfective" type and what others have referred to as R e s u l t a t i v e Perfect: The procedure [is] to propose a deep structure in which there is a relat i o n s h i p between the p e r i p h r a s t i c perfect and the possessive use of have and, in J u s t i f y i n g that proposal, to i n d i c a t e that the h i s t o r i a n Is incorrect [in his assumption that there is no c o n t i n u i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p between the possessive and the perfective have] (GALLAGHER 1970b: 52). 2.1. F i r s t of all we would l i k e to reproduce the deep-structure tree (I8b, cf. next page) provided for sentences l i k e ( l 8 a ) , 08a) John has f i n i s h e d that job. although we w i l l discuss o n l y some of the characteristics of that tree and thei r j u s t i f i c a t i o n .

94

(I8b)

(GALLAGHER 1970b: 53) It should become q u i t e c l e a r from the d i a g r a m that Mary G a l l a g h e r represents the "compound" n a t u r e of the Present Perfect by a s s u m i n g a deep structure w h i c h contains two embedded sentences: one of them contains the "agent", w h i l e the other refers to the "result" of the a c t i o n , i.e. to the fact that the job is f i n i s h e d . 2.1.

She S t and may

D e a l i n g w i t h the S embedded on the l e f t , her f i r s t c l a i m is now that the embedding is a s t a t i c passive. T h i s is in accordance w i t h the surface s t r u c t u r e of the o l d e r form, in w h i c h the complement has the word order of the passive: [19] John has that Job f i n i s h e d . [20] That job is f i n i s h e d . (GALLAGHER 1970b: 53) s t r o n g l y emphasizes that a s t a t i c and not a k i n e t i c passive is i n v o l v e d . a t i c passives a r e i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h _by_-phrases i n d i c a t i n g a n agent also w i t h a " d e f i n i t e Time Adverb in the same clause". As an example we refer to G a l l a g h e r ' s sentence ( 2 1 ) ,

fL Jl*aa tt noon) p r e s e n t )Λi which - in the "static" i n t e r p r e t a t i o n - n e i t h e r admits an agent nor a temporal adverb, as long as we s t i c k to the present tense. As i t m i g h t be d i f f i c u l t to see the d i f f e r e n c e between what G a l l a g h e r c a l l s a s t a t i c and a k i n e t i c passive, we m i g h t refer to German, where we f i n d a s i m i l a r d i f f e r e n t i ation in the sei n- and the werden-passive; t he we rden-pas s!ve as in (22a) (22a) Das Holz w i r d (von C h r i s t o p h ) v e r b r a n n t , is " k i n e t i c " and compatible w i t h an agent, whereas the s e i n - p a s s i v e as in (21)

That toast is b u r n t (*by John)

95

sentence ( 2 2 b ) i s i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h a n agent: (22b)

Das H o l z ist

(*von Thomas) v e r b r a n n t .

K e e p i n g these German examples i n m i n d , t h e i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y o f ( 2 1 ) w i t h t h e temporal adverbs a± noon or at present and w i th the preposi t i o n a l p h r a s e by John s h o u l d b e q u i t e o b v i o u s . T h e j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g c l a i m i s , however, n o t o b v i o u s a t a l l : These t w o c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e s t a t i c p a s s i v e , i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y w i t h agent phrases a n d [ i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y w i t h d e f i n i t e T i m e Adverbs i n t h e same c l a u s e ] , are a l s o found in the p e r i p h r a s t i c p e r f e c t s under cons i d e r a t i o n here. (GALLAGHER 1970b: $k) 2.2.

V / i t h o u t a d d u c i n g any examples beyond those m e n t i o n e d b e l o w , we w o u l d

l i k e to c l a i m here t h a t even a short look at a s m a l l set of sentences cont a i n i n g t h e Present P e r f e c t w i l l reveal that t h e E n g l i s h Perfect i s completel y c o m p a t i b l e w i t h t h e occurrence o f a n agent p h r a s e . I n a d d i t i o n t o t h a t , even G a l l a g h e r h e r s e l f emphasizes that the agent m e n t i o n e d in the s u b j e c t - N P tj of P e r f e c t sentences is r e q u i r e d to be a l i v e . T h e r e f o r e , her c l a i m about the i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y w i t h agent phrases cannot be taken to refer to the s u r f a c e , but only to (part of) the u n d e r l y i n g structure of the E n g l i s h ( R e s u l t a t i v e ) P e r f e c t , and our q u e s t i o n must be: can the a s s u m p t i o n s represented in treediagram (I8b) be j u s t i f i e d ? The agent-less sentence ( 2 0 ) , w h i c h represents a p o s s i b l e s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e of the u n d e r l y i n g embedded S ( B E ) job f i n i s h e d in ( l 8 b ) is i n f a c t c l o s e l y rel a t e d to sentence ( l 8 a ) by the r e l a t i o n of i m p l i c a t i o n : the t r u t h of ( l 8 a ) imp l i e s the t r u t h of ( 2 0 ) , and one m i g h t c o n s i d e r it an advantage t h a t the s t r u c t u r e u n d e r l y i n g t h e i m p l i e d sentence ( ( 2 0 ) ) i s p a r t o f t h e deep s t r u c t u r e of the i m p l y i n g sentence ( ( 1 8 ) ) . However, s u c h an i m p l i c a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n does not o n l y h o l d between a Present Perfect sentence ( l i k e ( l 8 a ) ) and ( 2 0 ) , but a l s o between a sentence in the Past ( l i k e ( 2 3 ) ) and ( 2 0 ) : (23)

John f i n i s h e d that job yesterday.

In a d d i t i o n t o t h a t , t h i s l a t t e r i m p l i c a t i o n i s n o t d u e t o t h e element P a s t , but to the fact that the verb ( p h r a s e ) is " t e l i c " (GAREY 1957) or - in Vendl e r ' s terms - an " a c c o m p l i s h m e n t " (VENDLER 1957). As e x a c t l y the same s i t u a t i o n o b t a i n s in respect of ( l 8 a ) and ( 2 0 ) , there is no reason

why an agent-

less " s t a t i c passive" s t r u c t u r e s h o u l d be assumed to occur in the deep s t r u c ture of the R e s u l t a t i v e Perfect, to which it is not related in any exclusive w a y at a l l .

2.3.

As the above q u o t a t i o n (see 2 . 1 . ) i n d i c a t e s , some j u s t i f i c a t i o n for an

u n d e r l y i n g " s t a t i c passive" i s sought i n t h e h i s t o r i c a l development o f E n g l i s h

96

where sentences w i t h have often had a word order as in sentence (19). It s h o u l d be obvious that great methodological problems are involved i n u s i n g d i a c h r o n i c arguments in order to support s y n c h r o n i c analyses. W i t h o u t going i n t o these problems, we would l i k e to point out here that G a l l a g h e r ' s i m p l i c i t assumption that t h e u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e diagrammed i n (l8b) w i l l also underlie such e a r l i e r forms, m i g h t at f i r s t s i g h t appear to f i n d some support. Such support could be seen in the fact that i n f l e c t i o n a l e n d i n g s indicated the close r e l a t i o n s h i p between the Object and the Past P a r t i c i p l e i n Old E n g l i s h times. However, even though OE sentences f r e q u e n t l y do not p e r m i t the a d d i t i o n of any agent-phrases (b^-phrases) in surface s t r u c t u r e , data from the h i s t o r y of E n g l i s h do not support G a l l a g h e r ' s assumption. As we can for example see from a sentence l i k e (2Ό, (2k) Ond hie e a l l e on pone c y n i n g waeron fechtende, ob baet h i e h i n e o f s l a e g e n n e h a e f d o n . ( O E C h r o n i c l e , about 755; quoted from V I S S E R 1973: 2387) the referent of the subject-NP of have, w h i c h s t i l l shows traces of a possessive meaning in OE, must also be taken to be the "agent" of the O b j e c t - P a r t i c i p i e - c o n s t r u c t i o n , i.e., we can assume the occurrence of two ( l e x i c a l l y and r e f e r e n t i a l l y ) i d e n t i c a l noun-phrases in the deep structure of such OE sentences. The fact that there is a whole set of examples ( i n c l u d i n g more recent ones) in V I S S E R (1973: §2118), where the referent of the (surface) subject-NP does not at the same t i m e denote the person that a c t u a l l y performed the act i o n (as e.g. in (25)) (25) He h a d d e bare tweie castles b i - w a 1 l e d swibe faste. (Layamon, about 1205; quoted from VISSER 1973: 2388) supports the view that there are two u n d e r l y i n g (active) sentences in deep s t r u c t u r e , none o f them w i t h o u t a subject-NP. T h i s a p p l i e s t h e more so, as a l l of V i s s e r ' s examples permit the i n s e r t i o n of ^^-phrases, although only three of them a c t u a l l y contain one: the reason is that the respective contexts p e r m i t the deletion of the second agent-phrase in a l l other cases. That the l a t e r development of E n g l i s h f i n a l l y resulted in an i n c r e a s i n g confusion of the two s t r u c t u r e s represented by (2k) and (25) is therefore n o t due to an agentless deep s t r u c t u r e involved at an e a r l i e r period, as Mary G a l l a g h e r c l a i m s : One r e s u l t of the fact that the s t a t i c passive does not indicate an agent is that the o l d e r form of the p e r i p h r a s t i c perfect is ambiguous w i t h respect to agent. (GALLAGHER 1970b: 5M The a m b i g u i t y (and the subsequent development of the modern Present Perfect) could rather be said to r e s u l t from the i d e n t i c a l word order in surface structure, as V i s s e r points out:

97

A f t e r about Shakespeare's t i m e the p a t t e r n w i t h post-position of the object g r a d u a l l y became the normal one. One of the causes of the dec l i n i n g of the p a t t e r n w i t h m i d - p o s i t i o n of the object may have been the fact t h a t it became i n c r e a s i n g l y l i a b l e to be confused w i t h a pattern w i t h the same s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e but an e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t deep s t r u c t u r e , v i z . the [structure] of the type he had it done ° he got i t done (by someone e l s e ) ... ( V I S S E R 1973: 2190) If we a l s o take i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h a t t h i s change in word-order c o i n c i d e d (a) w i t h the loss of the o r i g i n a l l y close r e l a t i o n s h i p between the Past P a r t i c i p l e and the Object and (b) w i t h the loss of the "possess i o n 1 - m e a n i n g in have, we must say that it is d i s r e g a r d of these i m p o r t a n t h i s t o r i c a l changes w h i c h u l t i m a t e l y leads to G a l l a g h e r ' s a s s u m p t i o n that there is a s t r u c t u r a l l y

rel-

evant c o n t i n u i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p between the possessive and the p e r f e c t i v e have, w h i l e her a s s u m p t i o n of an a g e n t l e s s sentence in the deep s t r u c t u r e of the modern E n g l i s h Present Perfect

is not e n t i r e l y u n r e l a t e d to a m i s i n t e r p r e t a -

tion of the Old E n g l i s h word order (Object - P a r t i c i p l e ) . In t h i s connection, we s h o u l d f i n a l l y p o i n t out that the above-mentioned a m b i g u i t y " w i t h respect to agent" (GALLAGHER 1970b: 5Ό w h i c h c e r t a i n l y could be observed at some stage in the h i s t o r y of E n g l i s h , cannot be observed any more, even though G a l l a g h e r c l a i m s that for sentences l i k e (26): (26)

The l a n d l o r d has thrown out the tenants. (GALLAGHER 1970b: 55)

O b v i o u s l y , t h i s sentence does nut o n l y mean that t h e l a n d l o r d d i d i t " w i t h h i s own hands"; he may J u s t as w e l l have asked the p o l i c e to do it for h i m . That (26)

can be understood in these ways is due to the fact that our real w o r l d

knowledge comes i n t o p l a y here, but it is c e r t a i n l y no j u s t i f i c a t i o n for h a v i n g an agentless s t a t i c passive in the u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e : on the b a s i s of our p r e c e d i n g d i s c u s s i o n , we can s a f e l y abandon t h i s idea. - If t h i s were not so, one m i g h t wonder, w h e t h e r a s i m i l a r s o l u t i o n would not a l s o be req u i r e d i n t h e case o f a (27)

P a s t

sentence l i k e (27)

Caesar b u i l t a b r i d g e across the R h i n e .

in order to make sure that the l i n g u i s t i c deep s t r u c t u r e accounts for the fact that i t c e r t a i n l y w a s n o t Caesar 2.1».

h i m s e l f

whodid the building.

L e a v i n g our arguments a g a i n s t the "agentless" character of the under-

l y i n g S job f i n i s h e d in ( l 8 b ) a s i d e , we must s t i l l ask, whether there is any j u s t i f i c a t i o n i n p o s t u l a t i n g that t h i s c o n s t i t u e n t s h o u l d not a d m i t a n y adverb. W h i l e it s h o u l d be obvious t h a t a sentence l i k e ( 2 1 ) cannot take the adverbi a l s marked by an a s t e r i s k , it should be j u s t as obvious that a sentence l i k e (28)

At present I ' v e read o n l y two of the books. (HUDDLESTON 19&9:

is p e r f e c t l y acceptable and that ( l 8 b ) must be a b l e to account for

it.

98

W i t h a view to a s e m a n t i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of ( l 8 b ) the above e x p l a n a t i o n of t h i s t r e e - d i a g r a m in terms of " r e s u l t " (job f i n i s h e d ) and "agent" (John) appears t o b e f u l l y j u s t i f i e d a t f i r s t s i g h t , i f w e keep i t s l i m i t a t i o n t o t h e R e s u l t a t i v e

P e r f e c t i n m i n d . L o o k i n g a t (28) i n a s i m i l a r w a y , w e

m i g h t say t h a t the " r e s u l t " is books ( a r e ) read, w h i l e the "agent" is j_; the a d v e r b i a l at present here refers to the s i t u a t i o n when the "result" was a v a i l able, i.e.

to the moment of speech. G i v e n ( l 8 b ) , we cannot see any other rea-

sonable a s s i g n m e n t of the a d v e r b i a l ; however, t h i s does not agree w i t h the "adverbless" r e q u i r e m e n t imposed by Mary G a l l a g h e r on job f i n i s h e d or on books read, a n d i t p r o v i d e s a f u r t h e r i n d i c a t i o n t h a t ( l 8 b ) cannot cope w i t h a c t u a l language data and t h a t it must be abandoned. 2.5.

A f t e r we have employed G a l l a g h e r ' s term " s t a t i c passive" for sentences

l i k e ( 2 1 ) a n d a l s o ( 2 2 b ) , w e m u s t f i n a l l y ask, w h e t h e r t h e t e r m i n o l o g y i s e n t i r e l y j u s t i f i e d . T h i s i s necessary i n view o f t h e fact t h a t t h e c r i t e r i o n "agentless" can a l s o be a p p l i e d to complement sentences w i t h a d j e c t i v e s ,

as

t h e s u b s t i t u t i o n s i n (29) a n d (30) i n d i c a t e : ( burnt ) (29)

The toast ( e ^ m e | ( £J.^ / (*by Peter) cri spy

(30)

is

The job { J IseemsJ)

f i n i shed hard ti ring demand!ng

(»by P a u l )

It is not o n l y so that b u r n t and f i ni shed can be s u b s t i t u t e d by a d j e c t i v e s l i k e b l a c k , h a r d , etc.; be can a l s o be s u b s t i t u t e d by seem w h i c h - a c c o r d i n g t o Q U I R K e t a l . (1972: 2 k ] )

- i s "one o f t h e d i a g n o s t i c c r i t e r i a f o r adjec-

t i v e s " . A c c o r d i n g l y , these s u b s t i t u t i o n s i n d i c a t e , h o w p r o b l e m a t i c t h e " s t a t i c passive" u l t i m a t e l y is: we can n e i t h e r accept it as a p a r t of the u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e of the Present P e r f e c t , nor can the term i t s e l f be J u s t i f i e d . 3.

I n s t e a d of p l a c i n g any f u r t h e r q u e s t i o n - m a r k s a g a i n s t Mary G a l l a g h e r ' s

theory,

I would now l i k e to p o i n t out b r i e f l y , w h i c h facts must be considered

in a proper a n a l y s i s o f t h e Present Perfect 3.1.

in E n g l i s h .

I t i s a b s o l u t e l y e s s e n t i a l t o d i s t i n g u i s h three d i f f e r e n t e l e m e n t s : t h e

t i m e (or p o i n t ) of speech, the p o i n t of reference, and the t i m e at w h i c h the respective events take p l a c e ( e v e n t - t i m e ) . Whereas speech- and e v e n t - t i m e are f a i r l y s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d concepts, t h i s cannot be s a i d about the t i m e of refer-

99

ence. T h i s concept i s c e r t a i n l y n o t e q u i v a l e n t t o w h a t Mary G a l l a g h e r uses the t e r m "reference" for: C e r t a i n Present P e r f e c t s ... do appear to make reference to the present time: John has been here s i n c e S a t u r d a y . O t h e r s , however, c o n t a i n a Present e n d i n g , but appear to r e f e r o n l y to the p a s t : John has thrown away his old books. (GALLAGHER 1970b: 72) If t h e Perfect c o u l d r e a l l y r e f e r t o present a s w e l l a s t o p a s t t i m e , i t w o u l d be d i f f i c u l t to a r r i v e at any u n i f i e d d e s c r i p t i o n . A c t u a l l y , the point of erence o f t h e Present P e r f e c t

in English is the

ref-

p r e s e n t ; i t i s ident-

i c a l w i t h the speech t i m e , whereas the e v e n t - t i m e a l w a y s precedes the speechand r e f e r e n c e - t i m e .

To represent t h i s a p p r o p r i a t e l y , it is best to assume a

deep s t r u c t u r e w h i c h e s s e n t i a l l y c o n s i s t s of two p a r t s and t h e r e f o r e can accommodate speech-/reference-time ( P r e s e n t ) and e v e n t - t i m e (Past) at the same t i m e . T h e a d v e r b i a l a t present (from sentence ( 2 8 ) ) , w h i c h p r o v i d e d t h e greatest p r o b l e m s for an a n a l y s i s in terms of ( l 8 b ) , can e a s i l y be accommodated in such a system: as it does not r e f e r to the t i m e when the r e a d i n g took p l a c e , it w i l l have to appear u n d e r the same node as the speech-/referencet i m e . The r e s u l t i n g t r e e - d i a g r a m is a n a l o g o u s to one in HUDDLESTON (1969: 782): (3D

ι me

read

at present

The d i f f e r e n c e s between ( l 8 b ) a n d (31) a r e o b v i o u s : f i r s t l y , t h e " r e s u l t " i s not represented any more, and therefore the d i a g r a m is not l i m i t e d to the Res u l t a t i v e P e r f e c t ; s e c o n d l y , what would have been the c o n s t i t u e n t s of Mary G a l l a g h e r ' s " s t a t i c p a s s i v e " appears -

t o g e t h e r

w i t h t h e "agent" - i n

an u n d e r l y i n g "active" sentence. O n l y one problem-area r e m a i n s , and t h i s - inc i d e n t a l l y - a l s o p r o v i d e s t h e greatest p r o b l e m s f o r l e a r n e r s o f E n g l i s h : t h e p r o b l e m consists in the fact that the Perfect in E n g l i s h does not p e r m i t any past t i m e a d v e r b , o r , i n other w o r d s , i t does n o t p e r m i t a n e x p l i c i t s p e c i f i cation of the e v e n t - t i m e .

Even though d i a g r a m (31) m i g h t appear to be more

e l e g a n t w i t h the q u e s t i o n - m a r k replaced by a past t i m e a d v e r b i a l , such a

100

s o l u t i o n r e q u i r i n g the l a t e r ( o b l i g a t o r y ) d e l e t i o n of the same a d v e r b i a l c l e a r l y c o u l d not be j u s t i f i e d here due to t h a t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c l i m i t a t i o n of the E n g l i s h Perfect. An acceptable approach m i g h t , however, be to e x p l a i n the i m p o s s i b i l i t y of an a d v e r b i a l s p e c i f i c a t i o n by a t t r i b u t i n g it to the fact that an underlying

e m b e d d e d

Past i s i n v o l v e d . Such a n e x p l a n a t i o n m i g h t

be j u s t i f i e d , if a s i m i l a r l i m i t a t i o n c o u l d be e s t a b l i s h e d for a past embedded i n a past, i.e. 3.2.

for the

P a s t

Perfect.

A c t u a l l y , the s i t u a t i o n is not completely c l e a r in the case of the Past

P e r f e c t , and C a r l o t a S. S M I T H (1976) does not o n l y say that a sentence l i k e (32)

Pursewardeij had l e f t A l e x a n d r i a in November.

is ambiguous between an ' a l r e a d y ' - r e a d i n g (the event happened before the

ref-

erence t i m e w h i c h is g i v e n by i n November) and a second r e a d i n g , where he left

in

N o v e m . b e r , b u t s h e a l s o adds:

most speakers that I have asked f i n d it odd and somehow incomplete. What is odd about [32J on the second r e a d i n g is that it lacks a[n exp l i c i t ] reference time. T h i s is apparent from [33], in w h i c h [32J is embedded as a complement: the m a t r i x sentence p r o v i d e s RT [the reference time} : [33] I remembered that Pursewarden had l e f t A l e x a n d r i a in November. (SMITH 1976: 5 f . ) As t h i s statement suggests a t r e e - d i a g r a m ( f o r reading one) w i t h an b e d d i n g

Past s p e c i f i e d by i n November and an

e m b e d d e d

e mPast

not s p e c i f i e d at a l l , the s i t u a t i o n m i g h t be p a r a l l e l to that of the Present Perfect. O n l y when the embedding Past is " s p e c i f i e d " by the Tense of a h i g h e r sentence (here: I remembered) does the embedded Past seem to p e r m i t a s p e c i f i cation by a temporal adverb. Whether t h i s statement a p p l i e s to sentence (33) e x c l u s i v e l y , or whether it has a more general a p p l i c a t i o n , must be f u r t h e r investigated. 3.3.

F i n a l l y , let me J u s t m e n t i o n that a complete d e s c r i p t i o n of the Present

Perfect in E n g l i s h must a l s o consider the "character" of the verb or verb phrase. Here we can a g a i n refer to GAREY (1957) and his d i s t i n c t i o n between " t e l i c " and "atelie" verbs w h i c h was a p p l i e d to the E n g l i s h Perfect by Gero BAUER (1970). T h i s d i s t i n c t i o n i s i m p o r t a n t , a s t h e t r a d i t i o n a l

differenti-

a t i o n between d i f f e r e n t k i n d s o f Perfect ( C o n t i n u a t i v e , I t e r a t i v e , R e s u l t a t i v e etc.)

can be a t t r i b u t e d to the t e l i c or a t e l i c "character" of the l e x i c a l verb

together w i t h the use of the respective adverbs: the t r a d i t i o n a l

differenti-

a t i o n s do not have to be a t t r i b u t e d to the Perfect as such. The Present Perfect i t s e l f h a s a u n i f i e d m e a n i n g , f o r w h i c h i t i s e s s e n t i a l that a n action

101

(or state) is referred to w h i c h happened " a n t e r i o r to a c e r t a i n p o i n t of reference [and which} is, at the point of reference, an accomplished fact" (BAUER 1970: 192). The point of reference may be s p e c i f i e d a d v e r b i a l l y , w h i l e the t i m e of the event must not be s p e c i f i e d , except for its b e g i n n i n g or for its d u r a t i o n as in (3k): I have been reading for q u i t e some t i m e now.

NOTES Thanks are due to M i s s J. C a r t e r , P. H. Marsden, P h . D . , and Dr.- W. Nöth for t h e i r comments on an e a r l i e r version of t h i s paper. G a l l a g h e r mentions (3b) w i t h o u t any f u r t h e r comments on i t s g r a m m a t i c a l i t y or a c c e p t a b i l i t y . As regards the other examples under (3) and ( k ) , we added the "*?" in order to i n d i c a t e that the sentences are f a i r l y awkward (as under ( 3 ) ) or - for two B r i t i s h i n f o r m a n t s - e n t i r e l y unacceptable without -ing ( ( k c ) and (^d)). That a k i n d of " b a c k - s h i f t i n g " (Jespersen's term; cf. JESPERSEN 1931: 151 f f . ) or "re-orientation" (cf. HUDDLESTON 1969: 79*0 is involved in sentences l i k e (?a) is brought out by a sentence l i k e ( 7 b ) , which is perfectly acceptable: (7b) The man who answered the telephone yesterday is H e n r y ' s brother. A p p l y i n g the same test to (8a) r e s u l t s in the unacceptable sentence (8b), (8b) *The woman who answered the telephone is H e n r y ' s g i r l f r i e n d last week, w h i c h indicates that an u n d e r l y i n g " o r i g i n a l " past is involved in the emb e d d i n g as w e l l as in the embedded sentence. The l a t t e r c o n c l u s i o n is supported by the f u l l y acceptable example (8c): (8c) The woman who answered the phone f i v e m i n u t e s ago was H e n r y ' s g i r l f r i e n d last week. A sentence 1 i k e (10b) (10b) P a u l ' s father was t a l l when he was a boy. is of course completely acceptable, as it does not c l a i m that P a u l ' s father has become s m a l l e r , b u t that h e once w a s " t a l l f o r a b o y " , w h i c h in the course of t i m e - does not a u t o m a t i c a l l y lead to a state w h i c h m i g h t be described as " t a l l for an a d u l t human male". - S i m i l a r considerations a p p l y i n the case of sentences l i k e (10c): (!0c) Young Johnny is t a l l . It s h o u l d , however, be pointed out that - contrary to Mary G a l l a g h e r ' s c l a i m - t h e "alive-subject"-constraint does n o t operate i n sentences l i k e (35a), in s p i t e of the occurrence of have: (35a) John is s a i d to have done that work very w e l l . T h i s becomes more obvious when we consider sentences where the subject-NP refers to a person who is known to be long dead, as in (35b) and (35c): (35b) Shakespeare is s a i d to have w r i t t e n i m p r e s s i v e dramas. (35c) Shakespeare is s a i d to have been a d r u n k a r d . (The u n d e r l y i n g structures of sentences l i k e (35a-c) are discussed more ext e n s i v e l y by HOFMANN 1966.) At least one of Mary G a l l a g h e r ' s reasons is that she sees a p a r a l l e l between sentences l i k e (20) ( w i t h be) and (l8a) ( w i t h have) on the one hand

102

6

and sentences l i k e (36a) and (36b) on the o t h e r : (36a) A book i s on the t a b l e . (36b) The t a b l e h a s a book on it. Sentences (36a) and (36b) are d e r i v e d from the same u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e ( ( B E ) a book on the t a b l e ) ; at the same t i m e , G a l l a g h e r ' s t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l derivaTion f~T36b} reVembles c l o s e l y her d e r i v a t i o n of ( l 8 a ) from ( l 8 b ) . However, w h i l e (36a) and (36b) are b r o a d l y synonymous, (l8a) and (20) are o n l y r e l a t e d i m p l i c a t i o n a l l y (see above). We assume t h a t OE sentences l i k e hie n i n e ofslaegenne haefdon are d e r i v e d from the two u n d e r l y i n g active sentences h i e haefdon and hie n i n e ofs logon.

REFERENCES BALD, W o l f - D i e t r i c h (1972): S t u d i e n zu den k o p u l a t i v e n Verben des E n g l i s c h e n . M u n i c h : Hueber. BAUER, Gero (1970): "The E n g l i s h ' P e r f e c t 1 reconsidered". Journal of L i n g u i s t i c s 6: 189-198. CHOMSKY, Noam A. (1965): Aspects of the theory of syntax. C a m b r i d g e , Mass.: MIT Press. GALLAGHER, Mary J. (!970a): "Adverbs of t i m e and tense". Papers from the s i x t h r e g i o n a l m e e t i n g , C h i c a g o L i n g u i s t i c Society: 220-225. ( I 9 7 0 b ) : Have and the Perfect in E n g l i s h . Ann Arbor, M i c h . : U n i v . Microf i l m s ( F i l m 70-13,322; U n i v . o f I l l i n o i s a t Urbana-Champaign P h . D . D i s s . ) GAREY, Howard B. (1957): "Verbal aspect in French". Language 33: 91-110. HOFMANN, T. Ronald (1966): "Past Tense replacement and the modal system". Report no. NSF-17 (Mathem. l i n g u i s t i c s and a u t o m a t i c t r a n s l a t i o n ) to the Nat. Science Foundation. C a m b r i d g e , Mass.: Harvard U . : V I 1 - 1 t o V I 1 - 2 1 . HUDDLESTON, Rodney D. (1969): "Some o b s e r v a t i o n s on tense and d e i x i s in Engl i s h " . Language k$: 777-806. J E S P E R S E N , Otto ( 1 9 3 1 ) : A modern E n g l i s h grammar on h i s t o r i c a l p r i n c i p l e s . Part IV: Syntax. London: A l l e n 6 U n w i n . Copenhagen: Munksgaard. Q U I R K , R a n d o l p h / GREENBAUM, S i d n e y / L E E C H , Geoffrey / SVARTVIK, Jan (1972): A grammar of contemporary E n g l i s h . London: Longman. SCHÖPF, A l f r e d ( 1 9 & 3 ) : "He is b e i n g clever". A n g l i a 81: 267-297. (1969): U n t e r s u c h u n g e n zur Wechselbeziehung zwischen G r a m m a t i k und Lexik im E n g l i s c h e n . B e r l i n : d e G r u y t e r . S M I T H , C a r l o t a S. (1976): A theory of a u x i 1 i a r y have in E n g l i s h . B l o o m i n g t o n , I n d . : I n d i a n a U n i v e r s i t y L i n g u i s t i c s C l u b (mimeographed). V E N D L E R , Zeno (1957): "Verbs and times". The P h i l o s o p h i c a l Review 66: 11»3-160. V I S S E R , F . T h . (1973): A n h i s t o r i c a l syntax o f t h e E n g l i s h language. Part I I I , second h a l f : S y n t a c t i c a l u n i t s w i t h t w o a n d w i t h more verbs. L e i d e n : Brill.

THE SYNTAX OF GERUNDS IN I T A L I A N * Marina Nescor

1.

Italian Gerunds always end in -ndo. Thus they are neither marked

for person nor for number and gender. Examples of sentences containing gerunds are given in (1) and (2) b e l o w , where the so called Gerundio Presente and Gerundio Passato respectively are e x e m p l i f i e d . (1)

Maria nuota pensando alle frasi relative. •Mary swims ( w h i l e ) thinking about relative clauses."

(2)

Giorgio se ne ando, avendo f i n i t o di lavorare. "George l e f t , having finished to w o r k . '

As can be seen from (3) and ( ^ ) below, the terms presente and passato do not refer to the time in which the sentence is uttered, as is the case with other tenses in I t a l i a n , but rather to the time to which the f i n i t e verb of the main sentence refers. Presente then means simulta2 ——-^—^— neous and passato a n t e r i o r . (3)

a. Giocando perse t u t t o . "He lost everything in games.' b. Sbagliando s ' i m p a r a . One learns by making mistakes.' c. Ridendo e scherzando arrivero fino in Turchia. •Loughing and joking I will get to Turkey. 1

(Ό

a. Avendo f i n i t o il pranzo usci. "Having finished his/her lunch he/she l e f t . 1 b. Avendo f i n i t o t u t t o esce e scappa. •Having finished everything he/she gets out and runs away. 1 c. Avendolo f i n i t o potra andarsene. 'Having finished it he/she will be able to go away.'

The examples ji, b_ and £ of (3) and ( ^ ) above show that the f i n i t e verb can be past, present or future respectively. Gerunds can also have d i f f e r e n t meanings, as can be seen in ( 5 ) - ( 9 ) . (5)

Giorgio e scappato, avendo preso paura. 'George ran away since he got scared.'

(6)

Sbagliando s'impara. One learns by making mistakes.'

(7)

Raschiando vien via. •It comes away if you scrape it. 1

(8)

Giorgio ha visto Maria attraversando la strada. •George saw Mary while crossing the s t r e e t . 1

(9)

Giorgio, credendo di farle piacere, le ha regalato un gelsomino· 'George, thinking to please her, gave her a jasmin. 1

104

They vary also in that they occur in d i f f e r e n t positions in the sentence. That is initially, as in (6) and ( 7 ) , finally, as in (8) and internally, as in ( 9 ) . In a d d i t i o n , they can have d i f f e r e n t

intona-

tions. For instance they may or may not be separated from the rest of the sentence by a pause . In this paper I am going to analyse the syntactic s t r u c t u r e of it gerunds in Italian . I will not take into consideration the s e m a n t i c differences mentioned above, since I believe that it is useful, for the time being, to keep syntax separate from semantics. For the sake of clarity I will include in my examples only sentence final gerunds and will show at the end that the fact that they do occur in other positions as well follows in a straightforward 2.0.

way from ny analysis.

Assuming that d i f f e r e n c e s in the phonetic pattern of speech

might signal d i f f e r e n c e s in the syntactic s t r u c t u r e , I will treat separately gerunds with d i f f e r e n t intonation patterns. 2.1.1.

Let us start by considering gerunds which are separated from

the rest of the sentence by a pause. ( L e t ' s call them G1) I wish to argue that they are dominated by an S n o d e , although the subject N o f t e n fails to surface. The first argument is based on the fact that the subject N can actually appear in the s u r f a c e , as is seen in (10)

Arrivero, Dio volendo. Ί will arrive, God v;illing. '

(11)

Partirerao doraani, il tempo permettendolo. •We will leave t o m o r r o w , weather allowing i t . 1

(12)

Ci credo, avendolo d e t t o Giorgio. Ί believe it, George having said i t . '

Another argument in favour of the sentence-hood of gerunds can be made if we assume a theory (as for instance the standard theory) that considers Passivization to be clause internal. The argument then is simply that this transformation can apply within gerunds as is seen in (13), where Passivization has applied twice. (13)

If,

Maria e stata consolata da Mario essendo stata t r a t t a t a male da Giorgio. •Mary has been consoled by Mario, having been mistreated by George. '

on the other hand, we do not consider Passivization to be clause

105

i n t e r n a l , ( 1 3 ) is evidence that the gerund is d o m i n a t e d by a cyclic node (i.e. either S or N P ) . Since gerunds cannot be N P ' s we can conclude that they are sentences . A t h i r d argument in favour of the sentence-hood of G 1 ' s is based on the fact that root t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s ;

in (1 O where in b_ Topicalization (1'0

2.1.2.

can apply to them as is seen

has applied.

a. Paolo ha baciato Franceses, vedendo avvicinarsi la f i n e . 'Paul kissed Francesca, foreseeing the e n d . ' b. Paolo ha baciato Francesca, la fine vedendo avvicinarsi. In the previous section I concluded that G 1 ' s are d o m i n a t e d

by an S node and not simply by a V. I claim in addition that the gerundive S is a sister of the main clause, not a subordinate clause. As the f i r s t argument in favour of the sisterhood of gerunds I will show that root t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s , such as Topicalization

or Parentheti-

cal Formation can apply to both sentences. In (15) an example is given in which Parenthetical Formation has applied to b o t h S nodes and in (16) an example is given in which Topicalization does the same. (15)

a. Paolo ha picchiato Francesca, c r e d o , pensando ad a l t r o , mi hanno detto. •Paul beat Francesca, I think, (while he was) thinking about something else, I have been t o l d . 1 b. Paolo ha picchiato, credo, Francesca, pensando, mi hanno d e t t o , ad altro.

(16)

a. Paolo ha baciato Francesca vedendo avvicinarsi la f i n e , b. Francesca Paolo ha b a c i a t o , la fine vedendo avvicinarsi.

Since root transformations apply only to root sentences, these examples show that G 1 ' s are in root sentences and are t h e r e f o r e sisters to the main clause. A sentence such as (1?) will then have a s t r u c t u r e like ( 1 8 ) (1?)

Marco andrä in Grecia, il tempo p e r m e t t e n d o l c . 'Mark will go to Greece, weather allowing it.'

(18)

S.

Marco

V

SpecN

in

Grecia

N

permettendolo

106

2.1.3-

A f u r t h e r argument that confirms the analysis just o f f e r e d

is

based on the intricate facts of r e f e r e n c e of gerunds, which seem to be very similar to those of coordinate s t r u c t u r e s . When the subject of the gerund surfaces as in (1?) or when the subject is obvious, for instance because of a r e f l e x i v e

as in ( 1 9 ) or be-

cause of the semantics of the sentence, as in (20) (because one person cannot be passing by a house and going out of it

at the same t i m e ) ,

there are no problems as far as r e f e r e n c e goes. (19)

Essendomi f a t t a male fu l ' u n i c o ehe mi soccorse. 'Having hurt m y s e l f , he was the only one who came to help m e . 1

(20)

Ho v i s t o Guendalina, essendo passata s o t t o casa proprio m e n t r e uscivo. ' I ' v e seen Guendalina, having passed by ( m y ) house just when I was g e t t i n g o u t . '

In all

other cases the gerund can only r e f e r to the subject of the

other c o o r d i n a t e , and not to any of its

c o m p l e m e n t s , as is seen in ( 2 1 )

and ( 2 2 ) .

(21)

Ho visto Guendalina p a r t e n d o da Sydney. ' I ' v e seen Guendaline while leaving Sydney.' (While I was leaving Sydney./*while she was leaving Sydney.)

(22)

Romeo ha l i t i g a t o con G i u l i e t t a non potendo fare niente di meglio. •Romeo fought w i t h G i u l i e t t a , non being able to do anything b e t t e r . ' (he was not able to do anything better/*she was not able to do anything b e t t e r )

If the arguments given above in favour of the sentencehood and sisterhood of G1's have been convincing, the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of (21) and ( 2 2 ) should not be surprising since similar f a c t s can be noticed in other coordinate constructions, as is seen in (23) and ( 2 4 ) . (23)

Luca bacio Maria e se ne ando. •Luca kissed Mary and l e f t . 1 (he left/*she l e f t )

(24)

Luca corapro una rosa per Luigi e la b u t t o via. 'Luca bought a rose for Luigi and t h r e w it away. 1 (Luca threw it away/*Luigi threw it away)

From these f a c t s it

seems that t h e r e is a constraint on coordinate

structures that says that when the subject of one of the c o n j u n c t s does not surface, the u n d e r s t o o d subject is the subject of the other conjunct and not any of its

other N P ' s . As can be seen from ( 2 5 ) , where

Passivization has applied to the first c o n j u n c t , this is a surface constraint , since it is the s u r f a c e subject (and not the deep s u b j e c t ) of the first c o n j u n c t that is understood as subject of the second c o n j u n c t

107

And as can be seen in ( 2 6 ) and ( 2 7 ) the same can be said for G 1 ' s , thus c o n f i r m i n g the thesis that G 1 ' s are coordinated sentences. (25)

Maria fu p i c c h i a t a da Marco e pianse. 'Mary was beaten by Mark and c r i e d . ' (she cried/*he c r i e d )

(26)

Maria fu vista da M a r c o , avendo a t t r a v e r s a t o il parco in bicicletta. •Mary was seen by Mark, having crossed the park by b i k e . ' (she had crossed/*he had crossed)

(27)

Maria fu vista da M a r c o , avendo aperto la finestra. 'Mary was seen by Mark, having opened the w i n d o w . ' (she had opened the window/*he had opened the w i n d o w )

2.2.1.

Let us now consider gerunds that are not separated from the

rest of the sentence by a pause. Let us call them 32's. In the present section I will argue that their structure is d i f f e r e n t from that of the gerunds considered in section 2.1.

above. The arguments I give are

based on the fact that none of the arguments given there in favour of the sentencehood of G 1 ' s holds for G 2 ' s . The first argument v/as based on the fact that there are sentences in which the subject of G 1 ' s surfaces. No such examples exist for G 2 ' s or at least I did not find any. The second argument was based on the fact that Passivization can apply to G1. Also this is not the case for G2, as can be seen in (28) where ji contains a G2 followed by a direct object, and b_ is its

coun-

terpart in which Passivization has applied. (28)

a. Maria parla mangiando la t o r t a . •Mary speaks eating the cake.' b.*Maria parla la torta essendo mangiata da

lei.

The third argument in favour of the sentencehood of G1's was based on the fact that a root t r a n s f o r m a t i o n can apply to them. But this, t o o , is not true for G2's, as is seen in ( 2 9 ) . (29)

a. Paolo cantava mangiando la torta. •Paul was singing (while) eating the cake.' b.*Paolo cantava la torta mangiando.

From these three arguments I conclude that G 2 ' s are not sentences but simple Vs.

The conclusion that G1 and G2 have d i f f e r e n t

syntactic

structures is confirmed by the fact that there are sentences that can be read both with and without a pause preceding the gerund and that have two d i f f e r e n t meanings for the two intonations. An example is given in (30)

(30). Marco fa ginnastica andando in bicicletta. 'Mark exercises while going by b i k e . ' or: 'Mark exercises by going by bike.'

108

2.2.2.

We can now ask ourselves what the s t r u c t u r e of G 2 ' s is.

I am

going to argue that they are complements of the v e r b , probably dominated by a node A The f i r s t argument is based on the f a c t that the verb alone cannot be e x t r a c t e d from a sentence such as ( 3 1 a ) , as can be seen from the ungrammatically of (31b). (3O

a. Maria voleva -nangiare cantando. •Mary wanted to eat while singing.' b.*Era nangiare ehe Maria voleva cantando. •It was eating that Mary wanted while s i n g i n g . '

Instead the verb plus the gerund can be e x t r a c t e d , as is seen in (32)· (32)

Era mangiare cantando ehe Maria voleva. 'It was eating while singing that Mary w a n t e d . '

If we assume that only c o n s t i t u e n t s may m o v e , then we can conclude that G2 forms one constituent with V and is therefore its

complement.

The second argument in favour of considering G2 as a complement of V is that it

can stand between V and other complements of V, as is

seen in (33). (33)

Marco corre strillando verso casa. 'Mark runs screaming towards h o m e . '

The only element that can stand between V and a complement of V, in addition to another complement, is a parenthetical. But in (33) strillando does not have the intonation that parentheticals have. Therefore it

is a complement of V. The s t r u c t u r e of a sentence such

as (31a) is then (3'0.

Maria

mangiare 3. 3.0.

cantando

S-initial and S-internal Gerunds. So far we have considered only gerunds in S-final position. As

I said at the beginning, however, gerunds can also appesr S-initially and S-internally. S-initial gerunds can be either followed by a pause

109

or not and S-internal gerunds are always both p r e c e d e d and follov;ed by a pause. 3.1. Let us consider first G 1 ' s . Since they are c o o r d i n a t e d to the clause with the f i n i t e v e r b , they can either precede it or f o l l o w

it.

And since when they occur S-internally t h e y have the same i n t o n a t i o n 12 as parentheticals , the reason they can appear there is obvious. An example of a G1 in final and initial position is given in (35) J*» b_ respectively and examples of G1 in internal position are given in

(35) £ and _d. (35)

3.2.

a. Giorgio le ha regalato un gelsomino, credendo di farle piacere. b. Credendo di farle piacere, Giorgio le ha regalato un gelsomino. c. Giorgio, credendo di farle piacere, le ha regalato un gelsomino. d. Giorgio le ha regalato, credendo di f a r l e piacere, un gelsomino.

In 2.2.2. I claimed that G 2 ' s are complements of the verb. This

claim is confirmed by the fact that they can occur pre-verbally (Sinternal), post-verbally either before another complement of V (S-internal) or a f t e r all of its

complements (V-final and perhaps also S-

f i n a l ) . Examples are given in (36) ja, b_ and _c_ respectively. (36)

a. Giorgio ridendo corre a Roma. •George laughing runs to R o m e . ' b. Giorgio corre ridendo a Roma. c. Giorgio corre a Roma ridendo.

Moreover, as other complements, G 2 ' s can be topicalized and thus occur S-initially, as seen in (37). (37)

Ridendo Giorgio corre a Roma.

^. Conclusions. To summarize b r i e f l y , I have distinguished two possible structures in which non-periphrastical gerunds may occur: 1) in coordinate structures 2) in the complement of V. With this analysis I have accounted for both the syntactic behaviour of gerunds and their reference 13 .

110

FOOTNOTES Some of the ideas of this paper are taken from section 3.7 of my doctoral dissertation. I would like to thank the people v;ho read and commented on that section, in particular Donna Jo Napoli and Robert Rodman. In addition I thank Ivonne Bordelois for a number of suggestions and Enzo Lo Cascio and Donna Jo Napoli who carefully read the first d r a f t of this paper, for t h e i r many helpful insights. A final thanks goes to my informants for their patience 1.

See, among others, Regula M. and J. Jerney (1965), Pittano G. (1972) and Altieri Biagi M . L . and L. Heilman (1975).

2.

See Pittano G. (1972).

3.

The presence or absence of a pause is the most obvious d i f f e r e n c e between the two intonation patterns. However, I will not discuss these patterns in detail here, since, for the purpose of the present discussion, it is sufficient to know that they are d i f f e r e n t even in fast speech where pauses might be absent.

^.

Gerunds can also appear in the so-called periphrastical constructions, following the verbs stare, andare and, more seldom, venire. Examples are given in (i) - ( i i i ) . (i) Sto suonando il flauto. Ί am playing the f l u t e . 1 (ii) Va dicendo storie a destra e a manca. 'He goes around telling stories. ' ( i i i ) Ma cosa vien raccontando? 'But what is he saying? 1 In this construction stare , andare and venire behave very much like auxiliaries, but for reasons of space I will not analyse this in detail here.

5.

I owe this observation to D.J. Napoli.

6.

For the notion of Root Transformation and Root Sentence see Emonds (1976).

7.

While most speakers accept (1%) only in a very formal style, I found some who did not accept it at all. Therefore this argument holds only for some varieties of Italian. For more examples of this kind see Nespor (1977: 90-92).

8.

For (15b) see f t n . 7 above.

9.

These sentences have been chosen in such a way t h a t , sernantically, the gerund could r e f e r to both the subject and the complement.

10.

In Fornaciari (1881) it is observed that some gerunds behave as adverbials.

11.

Notice that there is a question mark near A in ( 3 ^ ) · This is because I do not know exactly what the internal structure of that node is, or even whether it is an A at all. The only thing I showed here is that there is no S node.

12.

See Emonds (1976: '+3-60) and Nespor (1977: 79-87).

13.

If this analysis is c o r r e c t , a sentence such as (i) (i) Luca ha visto Giorgio mangiare attraversando il parco. 'Luca saw George eating while crossing the park.' (while Luca was crossing the park/while George was crossing the park)

Ill

where both Luce and Giorgio can be u n d e r s t o o d as subjects of the g e r u n d , supports an analysis for sentences w i t h i n f i n i t i v a l s emb e d d e d u n d e r p e r c e p t i o n p r e d i c a t e s which does not make use of a rule of subject to o b j e c t raising. In this analysis Giorgio is the subject of raangiare during the whole d e r i v a t i o n . ( F o r arguments in favour of t h i s analysis see Nespor (197?) and the works c i t e d t h e r e . ) That is, if either Luca or Giorgio can be understood as s u b j e c t s of the g e r u n d , a c c o r d i n g to what I said in 2.1.3. a b o v e , b o t h Luca and Giorgio should be the surface subj e c t s of some sentence.

BIBLIOGRAPHY ALTIERI BIAGI, Maria Luisa/HEILMAN, Luigi (1973): La lingua i t a l i a n a . Mursia. CHOMSKY, Noam (1973): "Conditions on T r a n s f o r m a t i o n s " . S. ANDERSON/ P. KIPARSKY ( e d s . ) : A f e s t s c h r i f t for Morris Halle. H o l t , Rinehart and Winston Inc. EMONDS, Joseph (1976): A T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l Approach to English Syntax. Academic Press Inc. FORNACIARI, R a f f a e l l o (1881): Sintassi I t a l i a n a . Ristampa (197*0. Biblioteca Sansoni. NESPOR, Marina (1977): Some syntactic s t r u c t u r e s of Italian and their r e l a t i o n s h i p to the Phenomenon of R a d d o p p i a m e n t o S i n t a t t i c o . Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n . U . N . C . N o r t h Carolina. PITTANO, Giuseppe (1972): G r a m m a t i c a Italiana. M o n d a d o r i . RADFORD, Andrew (197*0: B i d i r e c t i o n a l i t y in Raising. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. T r i n i t y College, Cambridge. REGULA, M./JERNEY, J. ( 1 9 & 5 ) : G r a m m a t i c a I t a l i a n a D e s c r i t t i v a . Francke V e r l a g , Bern und München. SCHACHTER, Paul (1977): "Constraints in c o o r d i n a t i o n " . Language

53.1.

ON I T A L I A N CLEFT SENTENCES* Giorgio Graffi

In this paper, I will deal with some problems arising from an analysis of Italian cleft sentences; more precisely, I will be concerned with the cases where the "focussed" phrase is a personal pronoun, for instance: (1) a. Sono io ehe 1'ho detto "It»s I that said it" b. Sei tu ehe l'hai detto "It's you that said it" c. E' lui ehe 1'ha detto "It's he that said it" d. Siamo noi ehe l'abbiamo detto "It's we that said it" e. Siete voi ehe l'avete detto "It's you that said it" f. Sono loro ehe l'hanno detto "It's they that said it" I shall try to account for the following facts: (i) we must explain the facts of person and number concord between the verb essere (to be) and the focussed personal pronoun (this problem doesn't appear in languages like English or French, where the matrix verb is always of the form C'est or It's, no matter what the following person be: C'est moi, C'est vous or It's I, It's you); (ii)

the second fact we have to account for is shown by

the following examples: (2) E' lui ehe Maria dice ehe I malato "It's

him that Mary says that he is

ill"

114

(3) *Sei tu ehe Maria dice ehe e malato "It's you that Mary says that he is

ill"

(4) *Sono io ehe Maria dice ehe e malato "It's me that Mary says that he is

ill"

That is to say, we must explain why, in sentences such as (2) the pronoun seems to be able to 'rise' from a deeper position (in this case two cycles deeper), while in sentences like (3) and (4) this seems not to be the case. Note that the sentences are also ungrammatical with the most deeply embedded verb in the same person as the focussed pronoun : (5) *Sei tu ehe Maria dice ehe sei malato "It's

you that Mary says that you are

ill"

(6) *Sono io ehe Maria dice ehe sono malato "It's

me that Mary says that I am ill"

Incidentally, sentences like (2) seem to invalidate the "Subjacency Condition" of CHOMSKY 1973, as BACH/HORN 1976 have already noted for a similar example: (7) It was Harriet that Bill wanted John to kiss (7) would be derived from a structure like (8) It BEAL· COMP Bill want [_ COMP John to kiss Harriet]] b

b

In order to derive (8), as Bach and Horn say, we would have to violate the Subjacency Condition, since substitution of Harriet for Δ would reach across two cyclic nodes. PINKHABt/HANKAMER 1975, in a very interesting paper on cleft sentences, propose to derive them from two different sources, and precisely they say that cleft sentences which can also be interpreted as headless relatives, as for instance (9) It was a banana that she was eating are generated basically, while sentences such as (10) It was during the war that he acquired his wounds are generated by means of a rule of It-clefting which extracts a focus constituent from the clause and creates the new struc-

115

ture with It-BE. In other words, in structures like (10), the It-BE phrase is introduced transformationally.

This "structure-

building" rule is an unwelcome step, because it noticeably increases the power of transformations; and Pinkham and Hankamer explicitly stress the "challenging" character of their argument. In fact, it seems to have some empirical confirmation, for instance in the case of the following German sentences: (11) Es ist Hans, der mit dir sprechen will (12) Es ist neben mir, dass er sich hingesetzt hat These sentences may prove a puzzle, since they both are (or both can be) cleft sentences, and yet they have a somewhat different form: the embedded clause in (11) is introduced by the relative pronoun, while the one in (12) is introduced by the complementizer dass, The Pinkham and Hankamer's analysis, which postulates two different origins for cleft sentences, would in my opinion account for these facts. Now, turning back to our Italian examples, let's see how they would be treated in the Pinkham-Hankamer framework. First, let's consider the problem of agreement between the fοcussed pronoun and the verb BE, as in ( i b ) : (1) b. Sei tu ehe l'hai detto "It's you that said it" If we assume, with Pinkham and Hankamer, that some cleft sentences are transformationally derived by a structure—building rule which creates a structure of the type It—BE» then it is a quite obvious step to say that this rule also yields, in Italian, the verb-pronoun concord in person and number. Secondly, in order to explain the ungrammaticality of structures like (3) *Sei tu ehe Maria dice ehe e malato "It's you that Mary says that he is

ill"

we can assume that they behave in a similar way to sentences

116

like (13) Giuseppe dice ehe i Bianchi abitano a Pavia da 4 anni "G. says that the B.'s have been living in P. for 4 years" which cannot be transformed by cleft sentence formation into sentences like (14) E 1 da 4 anni ehe Giuseppe dice ehe i Bianchi.abitano a Pavia "It's four years that G. says that the B.'s have been living in P." (13) and ( 1 4 ) are both grammatical, but they are clearly not synonymous. If we assume, with Pinkham and Hankamer, that cleft sentence formatioa for PP derives from a structure-building transformation and not from a rule similar to relative clause formation, then we can explain the behavior of (13) and (14) by relating it to the behavior of (15) and ( 1 6 ) , both grammatical but clearly not synonymous: (15)=(13) Giuseppe dice ehe i Bianchi abitano a Pavia da 4 anni "G. says that the B.'s have been living in P. for 4 years" (16) Da quattro anni Giuseppe dice ehe i Bianchi abitano a Pavia "It's four years that G. says that the B.'s have been living in P." But we now see the weakness of Pinkham and Hankamer's proposal:

first of all,

as far as the movement of PP or of first and

second person pronouns is concerned, the problem is simply shifted but not solvedj I mean that, as in the case of (15) and ( 1 6 ) , we are reminded that we are dealing with the same problems also in the case of non-cleft constructions. But this is not my main point; and I would add, as far as this goes, that

117

I am developing Pinkham and Hankamer's insights rather than quoting them. The biggest problem with Pinkham and Hankamer's proposal is that they make a neat distinction between cleft sentences with NP-focus, which can also be interpreted as headless relatives and which are generated basically, and cleft sentences with a non-nominal focus, which are generated by a structure building transformation. Indeed, we have to assign a NP status to third person pronouns and a non-NP status to first and second person pronouns, in order to explain the agreement facts of (1) and the difference between ( 2 ) , on the one hand, and (3)-(6) on the other. CHOMSKY 1976b has presented an approach to cleft sentences which can dispense us from having recourse to structure-building transformations; Chomsky proposes to generate basically the structure

(17) It - is - S where 3 indicates a sentence with its eomplementizer (in the sense of Bresnan (1970;1972)) and its TOP position; the base rules introduced by Chomsky to generate these structures are the following: (!8a) 3 -» TOP (I8b) S —*· COM

Rule (I8b) allows recursion for focussed structures; we get, in a structure like ( 1 7 ) , the focussed phrase in the TOP position of 3. This would also explain, in Chomsky's view, the obvious similarity in meaning between (19) and (20):