Scrambling (linguistics)

Last updated

Scrambling is a syntactic phenomenon wherein sentences can be formulated using a variety of different word orders without a substantial change in meaning. Instead the reordering of words, from their canonical position, has consequences on their contribution to the discourse (i.e., the information's "newness" to the conversation). Scrambling does not occur in English, but it is frequent in languages with freer word order, such as German, Russian, Persian and Turkic languages. [1] The term was coined by John R. "Haj" Ross in his 1967 dissertation and is widely used in present work, particularly with the generative tradition. [1]

Contents

Analysis

Discourse

Fig. 1: Discourse phrasal projections in bare phrase structure (without selectional features) Discourse Phrases (Scrambling.png
Fig. 1: Discourse phrasal projections in bare phrase structure (without selectional features)

Although scrambling does not change the semantic interpretation ("meaning") of the sentence, its scrambled configurations will be given in particular contexts related to discourse. This is the underlying information that contextualizes a conversation, when you add to the discourse you will reference "old" and "new" information. [2] Within syntax, these can be structurally represented through topic (TopP) and focus (FocP) phrases. [3] Topic is the pre-established context of the discourse, whereas Focus is the "new" or emphasized information being highlighted.

Tree Structure (Movement Approach)

These additional phrasal categories occur between the clausal phrase (CP) and tense phrase (TP - previously referred to as inflection phrase "IP"). Both TopP and FocP have empty specifier positions that can house the scrambled XPs (phrases). When using discourse phrasal categories, what would typically be notated as "CP" becomes ForceP which will specify the clausal type (i.e., declarative, interrogative, etc.).

The empty specifier positions (i.e., 'XP') in Fig. 1 provide a landing site for phrases to move to. These sites are where phrases will be scrambled under the A-movement approach, which claims that scrambled words move to clause-initial position (see Theories: Base-generated vs. Movement). This movement has been proposed to be driven by the structural constraint 'EPP' (extended projection principle), which selects for a phrasal category as its specifier. [1] Unlike the EPP:D feature in 'DP movement' into subject position, it functions similarly to EPP in wh-movement and topicalization, where it selects for a phrasal category that the language allows to move into 'topic' and 'focus' position (often determiner phrases 'DP' or preposition phrases 'PP').

Case Marking

Scrambling is most common in morphologically rich languages with overt case markers, which help to keep track of how entities relate to a verb. [4] For example, the Japanese suffix [-ga] is a nominative marker which means the that entity is the subject of the verb, and [-o] is an accusative marker that signals the object of a verb. This allows speakers to know that [Kēkio Maryga taberu] means "Mary eats cake" and not "Cake eats Mary".

Examples

Examples from Japanese (Short Distance)

Japanese is an SOV language with extensive scrambling due to its robust case-marking system (e.g., が -ga for nominative case, subject marker; お -o for accusative case, direct object marker; に -ni for dative case, indirect object or location marker). Japanese relies heavily on case markers to determine the roles of constituents, allowing word order to be flexible without ambiguity. Scrambling has no syntactic or semantic penalty because the parser immediately uses case markers to interpret arguments. It is often driven by the need to emphasize certain constituents or highlight new information.

The following example from Japanese illustrates a transitive example of short distance scrambling (i.e., to clause initial position).

Fig. 2: Bare phrase syntax tree (with selectional features) showing the short-distance scrambling shown in Japanese Table 1. Short-disctance Scrambling in Japanese.png
Fig. 2: Bare phrase syntax tree (with selectional features) showing the short-distance scrambling shown in Japanese Table 1.
1(a). Canonical Sentence
Mary-gakēki-otaberu
Mary-NOMcake-ACCeats
"Mary eats cake"

In this default sentence, the subject ( 'Mary' ) and object (kēki, 'cake') ratain in their typical order. There is no specific emphasis or focus with the default sentence structure.

1(b). Scrambled Sentence
Kēki-oMary-gataberu
Cake-ACCMary-NOMeats
"Mary eats cake"

The object (kēki, "cake") is fronted, highlighting the subject ("Mary") as new information or the focus.

As you can see, in this table, despite the ordering of the agent (i.e., one who carries out action) 'Mary' and the patient (i.e., thing being acted upon) "cake" changing, there is not difference in their core meaning. Instead, what changes is the information being emphasized. In 1(a), there is either no focus (a statement), or the "cake" is being emphasized, whereas in 1(b), Mary is the focus.

A speaker would generate the sentence in 1(b) when they wanted to emphasize Mary, or when providing new information. For example, if someone asked "who is eating the cake?", the response could be "CakeTOP MARYFOC eats". The canonical sentence "Mary cake eats" would still be an appropriate answer, but the scrambled configuration emphasizes the "new" information.

Studies (Yamashita, 1997) [5] show that scrambled sentences in Japanese do not impose a processing penalty, unlike in some other languages. Case markers enable the parser to immediately assign syntactic roles, reducing reliance on word order. At early parsing stages, Japanese exhibits non-configurationality. This indicates that:  1) Arguments are not strictly hierarchically ordered; 2) Constituents attach directly to the clause, with case markers providing necessary cues for syntactic and semantic interpretation.

Examples from German

Ditransitive Embedded Clause

The following examples from German illustrate typical instances of scrambling:

a.

dass

that

der

the

Mann

man

der

the

Frau

woman

die

the

Bohnen

beans

gab

gave

dass der Mann der Frau die Bohnen gab

that the man the woman the beans gave

'that the man gave the woman the beans'

b.dassderNOM ManndieACC BohnenderDAT Fraugab
c.dassderDAT FrauderNOM ManndieACC Bohnengab
d.dassderDAT FraudieACC BohnenderNOM Manngab
e.dassdieACC BohnenderNOM MannderDAT Fraugab
f.dassdieACC BohnenderDAT FrauderNOM Manngab

These examples illustrate scrambling in the midfield of a subordinate clause in German. The 'midfield' is a position within the sentence structure, with 'frontfield' and 'endfield' acting like bookends for the sentence (usually C-head/subject and V/object). The midfield is where we typically see scrambling occur in freer word order languages.

All six clauses are acceptable, whereby the actual order that appears is determined by pragmatic considerations such as emphasis (i.e., Focus and Topic). The canonical word order is usually considered the one that native speakers accept as the most natural in which none of the referents are known. [2] If one takes the first clause (clause a) as the canonical order, then scrambling has occurred in clauses b–f. The three constituents (DP's) der Mann, der Frau, and die Bohnen have been scrambled to different positions depending on the discourse, with the second pronounced entity (DP) being the focus of the phrase (see "Discourse").

Definite vs. Indefinite Pronouns

There is a clear tendency for definite pronouns to appear to the left in the midfield. In this regard, definite pronouns are frequent candidates to undergo scrambling:

weil

because

mich

me

die

the

Kinder

kids

oft

often

ärgern

bother

weil mich die Kinder oft ärgern

because me the kids often bother

'because the kids often bother me'

ob

whether

uns

us

jemand

someone

helfen

help

wird

will

ob uns jemand helfen wird

whether us someone help will

'whether someone will help us'

The canonical position of the object in German is to the right of the subject (i.e., SOV). In this regard, the object pronouns mich in the first example and uns in the second example have been scrambled to the left, so that the clauses now have OS (object-subject) order. The second example is unlike the first example as it necessitates an analysis in terms of a discontinuity, due to the presence of the auxiliary verb wird 'will'.

Non-midfield Scrambling or Topicalization?

Scrambling can be an ambiguous term, and identifying word movement that fits cleanly into can be difficult. Standard instances of scrambling in German occur in the midfield, as stated above. There are, however, many non-canonical orderings, whose displaced constituents do not appear in the midfield. One can argue that such examples also involve scrambling:

Erwähnt

mentioned

hat

has

er

he

das

that

nicht.

not

Erwähnt hat er das nicht.

mentioned has he that not

'He didn't mention that.'

The past participle erwähnt has been topicalized in this sentence, but its object, the pronoun das, appears on the other side of the finite verb. There is no midfield involved in this case, which means the non-canonical position in which das appears in relation to its governor erwähnt cannot be addressed in terms of midfield scrambling. The position of das also cannot be addressed in terms of extraposition, since extraposed constituents are relatively heavy, much heavier than das, which is a very light definite pronoun. Given these facts, one can argue that a scrambling discontinuity is present. The definite pronoun das has been scrambled rightward out from under its governor erwähnt. Hence, the example suggests that the scrambling mechanism is quite flexible.

Fig.3: Bare phrase syntax tree of verb topicalization in German Syntax tree (51).png
Fig.3: Bare phrase syntax tree of verb topicalization in German

On the other hand, while German's ability to scramble verbs is debatable, it does allows for verb-head topicalization. As seen if fig.3, it can be adequately argued that this sentence does not involve scrambling as we currently understand it. In this tree, the verb [erwähnt] moves to the topic position, the auxiliary complementizer [hat] moves to the C head, and [er] moves into subject position. This changes the underlying sentence [Er hat das nicht erwähnt] into [Erwähnt hat er das nicht ___] without any scrambling involving TopicP and FocusP. This highlights how difficult it is for syntacticians to tease apart what processes actually account for changes to canonical word-order. These processes may operate completely independently, or could be aspects of the same syntactic processes that may one day be unified into a single theory.

*Note: Variations in the sentence [Er hat das nicht erwähnt] (e.g., [Das er hat das nicht erwähnt]) could be examples of A-movement scrambling

Similarities to Extraposition

Scrambling is like extraposition (but unlike topicalization and wh-fronting) in a relevant respect; it is clause-bound. That is, one cannot scramble a constituent out of one clause into another in all cases:

Grammatical Sentence

Sie

she

hat

has

gesagt,

said

dass

that

wir

we

das

that

machen

do

sollten.

should

Sie hat gesagt, dass wir das machen sollten.

she has said that we that do should

'She said that we should do that.'

Ungrammatical Sentence

*Sie

she

hat

has

das

that

gesagt,

said,

dass

that

wir

we

machen

do

sollten.

should

*Sie hat das gesagt, dass wir machen sollten.

she has that said, that we do should

The first example has canonical word order. The second example illustrates how the definite pronoun [das] becomes ungrammatical when scrambled out of the embedded clause into the main clause. The sentence becomes strongly unacceptable. Extraposition is similar. When one attempts to extrapose a constituent out of one clause into another, the result is unacceptable. However, there are cases where words can be scrambled outside of a clause ('long distance scrambling"), although this form of scrambling is governed by additional rules compared to clause-initial ("short distance") scrambling.

Example from Persian

Scrambling in Persian play a significant role in organizing information structure, especially in topicalization and contrasive focus. [6]

Topicalization

In Persian, topics are typically specific and frequently marked by the specificity particle -râ. The topicalized element scrambles to a higher syntactic position, this includes Spec-Cp or Spec-IP.

  • Canonical SOV Word Order

Ali

Ali-NOM

ketâb-ro

book-ACC

barâ

for

Sarah

Sarah

xund.

read

Ali ketâb-ro barâ Sarah xund.

Ali-NOM book-ACC for Sarah read

Ali read the book for Sarah.

  • Scrambled (Topicalized) Order

In

This

ketâb-ro

book-ACC

Ali

Ali

barâ

for

Sarah

Sarah

xund

read

In ketâb-ro Ali barâ Sarah xund

This book-ACC Ali for Sarah read

As for this book, Ali read it for Sarah.

In the scrambled example, the object in ketâb-ro ("this book") is topicalized. This suggests that "this book" refers to the old or background information that is already familiar to both the speaker and the listener.

Contrastive Focus

Contrastive focus highlights the element of the sentence that are new, emphasized, or contrasted. The focus elements scramble to the left, which are typically into Spec-Cp or Spec-IP position. They also receives phonological stress for emphasis.

  • Canonical SOV Word Order

Kimea

Kimea-NOM

barâ

for

Sarah

Sarah

ketâb

book

xarid.

bought

Kimea barâ Sarah ketâb xarid.

Kimea-NOM for Sarah book bought

Kimea bought a book for Sarah.

  • Scrambled (Topicalized) Order

YE

A

ketâb

book

Kimea

Kimea

barâ

for

Sarah

Sarah

xarid.

bought

YE ketâb Kimea barâ Sarah xarid.

A book Kimea for Sarah bought

Kimea bought A BOOK for Sarah (not something else)

The object YE ketâb ("A BOOK") is scrambled to the left-most position. It is also marked with stress, which indicates that it is contrasively focused. This implies that Kimea significantly bought a book instead of something else.

Example from Czech

Czech is an SVO language with free word order, made possible by its rich case-marking system. Czech's lack of overt articles or fixed positions for noun phrases allows for flexible word order. Despite flexibility, scrambling is constrained by information structure (focus and background) and specificity.

In Czech, scrambling plays a critical role in keeping the syntactic structure consistent with syntactic structure and the interpretation of information. When a constituent remains in situ within the vP phase, it can have two interpretations (or, readings), including an existential reading or specific reading. Exitential reading refers to an indefinite, for instance, unknown entity like "some dog", while a specific reading refers to a known or presupposed entity, such as "her dog". As vP phase is the domain of focus, new or unknown information is introduced. This arises the fexilibity. However, when a constituent is scrambled to the CP phase (typically to the left periphery of the sentence), because scrambling moves the element into the domain of backgrounded or presupposed information it can only have a specific interpretation.

Drivers of Scrambling

Scrambling in Czech is driven by Specificity-feature with an EPP (Extended Projection Principle) property. For specifity-freature, it refers to the only elements that are specific (referential and presupposed) are eligible for scrambling. The EPP property ensures that these specific constituents are moved overtly to the left periphery (CP phase).

Semantic Interface

Biskup (2006) [7] proposes a theory of scrambling based on the unification of Diesing (1992) and Chomsky's phase model (2000). He aurgue that the vP phase corresponds to the nuclear scope, and the CP phase corresponds to the restrictive clause. In semantic terms:

  • Constituents within vP (in situ) are interpreted in the nuclear scope, allowing existential or non-specific readings.
  • Constituents moved to CP (scrambled) are mapped into the restrictive clause, requiring specific interpretations.

Scrambling creates a division between elements that remain part of the predication (new information) and elements that are part of the domain of quantification (background or old information). Specific elements are constrained to restrictive clauses after scrambling.

Scrambling Example in Czech

In Situ (vP Phase)

Marie

Marie-NOM

odpoledne

in-the-afternoon

zajela

ran-over

psa.

dog-ACC

Marie odpoledne zajela psa.

Marie-NOM in-the-afternoon ran-over dog-ACC

‘Marie ran over her/the dog in the afternoon.’

The direct object psa ("dog") remains in its base position within the vP phase, making it part of the focus domain. It is syntactically mapped to the nuclear scope.

Semantic Interpretations
  1. Existential Reading: 'psa' can mean "some dog". It can refer to an indefinite or unknown referent. As the object is not linked to a restrictive clause, it retains flexibility in interpretation.
  2. Specific Reading: 'psa' can also refer to a specific, known entity, such as "her dog." Specific readings in situ are enabled through covert operations like quantifier raising (QR).
Scrambled (CP Phase)

Marie

Marie-NOM

psa

dog-ACC

odpoledne

in-the-afternoon

zajela.

ran-over

Marie psa odpoledne zajela.

Marie-NOM dog-ACC in-the-afternoon ran-over

'Marie ran over her/the dog in the afternoon.'

The object psa is scrambled to the CP phase (left periphery). This result in making it part of the restrictive clause. Its syntactic position outside the vP phase ensures that it no longer contributes to the focus domain.

Semantic Interpretations
  1. Exclusion of Existential Reading: After scrambling, psa cannot mean "some dog," as existential readings are restricted to elements in the nuclear scope (vP phase).
  2. Specific Reading: psa must refer to a specific referent, such as "her dog." The restrictive clause excludes existential or non-specific interpretations.

Scrambling within a Constituent

Classical Latin and Ancient Greek were known for a more extreme type of scrambling known as hyperbaton , defined as a "violent displacement of words". [8] This involves the scrambling (extraposition) of individual words out of their syntactic constituents. Perhaps the most well-known example is magnā cum laude "with great praise" (lit. "great with praise"). This was possible in Latin and Greek because of case-marking: For example, both magnā and laude are in the ablative case.

Hyperbaton is found in a number of prose writers, e.g. Cicero:

Hic optimus illīs temporibus est patrōnus habitus [9]
he best in those times is lawyer considered
'He was considered the best lawyer in those times.'

Much more extreme hyperbaton occurred in poetry, often with criss-crossing constituents. An example from Ovid [10] is

Grandia per multōs tenuantur flūmina rīvōs.
great into many are channeled rivers brooks.
'Great rivers are channeled into many brooks.'

An interlinear gloss is as follows:

grandia

great.NOM.NEUT.PL

per

through

multōs

many.ACC.MASC.PL

tenuantur

are.tapered

flūmina

rivers.NOM.NEUT.PL

rīvōs

brooks.ACC.MASC.PL

grandia per multōs tenuantur flūmina rīvōs

great.NOM.NEUT.PL through many.ACC.MASC.PL are.tapered rivers.NOM.NEUT.PL brooks.ACC.MASC.PL

'Great rivers are channeled into many brooks.'

The two nouns (subject and object) are placed side-by-side, with both corresponding adjectives extraposed on the opposite side of the verb, in a non-embedding fashion.

Even more extreme cases are noted in the poetry of Horace, e.g. [11]

Quis

Which

multā

many

gracilis

slender

thee

puer

boy

in

in

rōsā

rose

//

//

perfūsus

infused

liquidīs

liquid

urget

urges

odōribus

odors

//

//

grātō,

pleasant,

Pyrrha,

Pyrrha,

sub

under

antrō?

cave?

Quis multā gracilis tē puer in rōsā // perfūsus liquidīs urget odōribus // grātō, Pyrrha, sub antrō?

Which many slender thee boy in rose // infused liquid urges odors // pleasant, Pyrrha, under cave?

'What slender Youth bedew'd with liquid odors // Courts thee on (many) Roses in some pleasant cave, // Pyrrha ...?' [12]

Glossed interlinearly, the lines are as follows:

Quis

which.NOM.M.SG

multā

many.ABL.F.SG

gracilis

slender.NOM.M.SG

you.ACC.SG

puer

boy.NOM.M.SG

in

in

rōsā

rose.ABL.F.SG

Quis multā gracilis tē puer in rōsā

which.NOM.M.SG many.ABL.F.SG slender.NOM.M.SG you.ACC.SG boy.NOM.M.SG in rose.ABL.F.SG

perfūsus

infused.NOM.M.SG

liquidīs

liquid.ABL.M.PL

urget

urges.3SG

odōribus

odors.ABL.M.PL

perfūsus liquidīs urget odōribus

infused.NOM.M.SG liquid.ABL.M.PL urges.3SG odors.ABL.M.PL

grātō

pleasant.ABL.N.SG

Pyrrha

Pyrrha.VOC.F.SG

sub

under

antrō?

cave.ABL.N.SG

grātō Pyrrha sub antrō?

pleasant.ABL.N.SG Pyrrha.VOC.F.SG under cave.ABL.N.SG

Because of the case, gender and number marking on the various nouns, adjectives and determiners, a careful reader can connect the discontinuous and interlocking phrases Quis ... gracilis ... puer, multā ... in rōsā, liquidīs ... odōribus in a way that would be impossible in English.

Theoretical Analysis

Base-generation vs. Movement

Thus far, scrambling has mainly been discussed as a type of movement. However, whether scrambling is a result of movement or base generation is one of the great dividers among researchers, and the answer is still unclear. Many syntacticians claim that a combination of both approaches is the answer, while others maintain it is either one or the other. Base-generation theorizes that scrambled words are generated up from the base of the tree, rather than moved or transformed. Many supporters of this theory defend their stance with the argument that there is little solid evidence as to what the trigger for any supposed movement is, although many theorize that an EPP feature of some variety could be the answer. Besides examining what the trigger for scrambling may be, authors also look at the locus. Some claim that base-generation fares better here also, as the different orders that constituents may show are supposedly dependent on a base generation operation "merge". When looking at where scrambling occurs from this point of view, merge leaves less questions to be answered than movement theories do. [13]

As seems to be the case with scrambling, neither movement nor base-generation theories are perfect. This is why many authors concede that there is some combination of both operations going on at the very least, although many take a strong stance on either side. At present, the general consensus is that what exactly is going on in scrambling is still unknown, but that movement is the dominant theory with some possible "enrichment" from base-generation operations. [13]

Clause-boundedness

John 'Haj' Ross, who was the first to begin formulating research on scrambling, made the initial suggestion that this was a clause-bound operation. This was largely dependent on German data, in which scrambling a word outside of its clause often resulted in ungrammaticality. [1]

However, further research into other languages such as Hindi, Japanese, Persian and Korean revealed that Ross' initial assumption was incorrect, as scrambling being a clause-bound phenomenon was not limited to short-distance movements in other languages. This was the first indication that scrambling is not a uniform operation across all languages, and its varying degrees of movement or word order change are heavily language-dependent. [1] In sum, this is not a phenomenon that is solely limited to within-clause boundaries, although the criteria for its limits change from language to language.

Configurational vs Non-Configurational

Configurational languages are known for their rigid hierarchical phrase structures. It was initially suggested that scrambling only occurs in non-configurational languages, or languages with flat clause structures. This assumption held for a number of years, until it was revealed that Japanese, a language that often makes use of scrambling, is not non-configurational at all. Furthermore, other scrambling languages such as Persian also don't fall under the non-configurational category. [1] See below for an elaboration on configurational vs. non-configurational structures and what this means for scrambling.

Comparison: Configurational vs. Non-Configurational
AspectConfigurational StructureNon-Configurational
StructureHierarchical (tree-like syntax)Flat (arguments attach directly to clause)
Role of Word OrderReflects syntactic roles (e.g., subject, object)Flexible; case markers define roles
MovementTriggered by syntactic/pragmatic featuresRare or unnecessary due to flat structure
ScramblingAdds hierarchical complexity (e.g., vP → CP)No additional complexity; roles are marker-driven
Sample LanguageCzech (configurational)Japanese (non-configurational)

Scrambling as Shifting

The theoretical analysis of scrambling can vary a lot depending on the theory of sentence structure that one adopts. Constituency-based theories (phrase structure theories) that prefer strictly binary branching structures are likely to address most cases of scrambling in terms of movement (or copying) as shown in figs. 1–3. [13] However, other theories of sentence structure, for instance those that allow n-ary branching structures (such as all dependency grammars), [13] see many (but not all!) instances of scrambling as shifting. These two analyses are illustrated below. The first tree illustrates the movement analysis of the example above in a theory that assumes strictly binary branching structures. The German subordinate clause weil mich die anderen oft einladen is used, which translates as 'because the others often invite me':

Scrambling1.jpg

The abbreviation "Sub" stands for "subordinator" (= subordinating conjunction), and "S" stands for "subordinator phrase" (= embedded clause). The tree on the left shows a discontinuity (= crossing lines) and the tree on the right illustrates how a movement analysis deals with the discontinuity. The pronoun mich is generated in a position immediately to the right of the subject; it then moves leftward to reach its surface position. The binary branching structures necessitate this analysis in terms of a discontinuity and movement.

A theory of syntax that rejects the subject-predicate division of traditional grammar (Sentence → NP+VP) and assumes relatively flat structures (that lack a finite VP constituent) will acknowledge no discontinuity in this example. Instead, a shifting analysis addresses many instances of scrambling. The following trees illustrate the shifting-type analysis in a dependency-based grammar. [14] The clause from above is again used (weil mich die anderen oft einladen 'because the others often invite me'):

Scrambling2.jpg

The tree on the left shows the object in its canonical position to the right of the subject, and the tree on the right shows the object in the derived position to the left of the subject. The important thing to acknowledge about the two trees is that there are no crossing lines. In other words, there is no discontinuity. The absence of a discontinuity is due to the flat structure assumed (which, again, lacks a finite VP constituent). The point, then, is that the relative flatness/layeredness of the structures that one assumes influences significantly the theoretical analysis of scrambling.

The example just examined can be, as just shown, accommodated without acknowledging a discontinuity (if a flat structure is assumed). There are many other cases of scrambling, however, where the analysis must acknowledge a discontinuity, almost regardless of whether relatively flat structures are assumed or not. This fact means that scrambling is generally acknowledged as one of the primary discontinuity types (in addition to topicalization, wh-fronting, and extraposition).

Definitions

Related Research Articles

A relative clause is a clause that modifies a noun or noun phrase and uses some grammatical device to indicate that one of the arguments in the relative clause refers to the noun or noun phrase. For example, in the sentence I met a man who wasn't too sure of himself, the subordinate clause who wasn't too sure of himself is a relative clause since it modifies the noun man and uses the pronoun who to indicate that the same "man" is referred to in the subordinate clause.

A movement paradox is a phenomenon of grammar that challenges the transformational approach to syntax. The importance of movement paradoxes is emphasized by those theories of syntax that reject movement, i.e. the notion that discontinuities in syntax are explained by the movement of constituents.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nominative–accusative alignment</span> Concept of sentence structure in linguistics

In linguistic typology, nominative–accusative alignment is a type of morphosyntactic alignment in which subjects of intransitive verbs are treated like subjects of transitive verbs, and are distinguished from objects of transitive verbs in basic clause constructions. Nominative–accusative alignment can be coded by case-marking, verb agreement and/or word order. It has a wide global distribution and is the most common alignment system among the world's languages. Languages with nominative–accusative alignment are commonly called nominative–accusative languages.

Suffixaufnahme, also known as case stacking, is a linguistic phenomenon used in forming a genitive construction, whereby prototypically a genitive noun agrees with its head noun. The term Suffixaufnahme itself is literally translated as "taking up of suffixes", which can be interpreted as the identical case marking of different but referentially-related phrases, with the presumption that nominal phrases possess a flat or non-configurational syntax. Across syntactic theories, case is seen as a bundle of features, and case agreement as the identity of case features. It was first recognized in Old Georgian and some other Caucasian and ancient Middle Eastern languages as well as many Australian languages, and almost invariably coincides with agglutinativity.

In syntax, verb-second (V2) word order is a sentence structure in which the finite verb of a sentence or a clause is placed in the clause's second position, so that the verb is preceded by a single word or group of words.

A cleft sentence is a complex sentence that has a meaning that could be expressed by a simple sentence. Clefts typically put a particular constituent into focus. In spoken language, this focusing is often accompanied by a special intonation.

In linguistics, wh-movement is the formation of syntactic dependencies involving interrogative words. An example in English is the dependency formed between what and the object position of doing in "What are you doing?". Interrogative forms are sometimes known within English linguistics as wh-words, such as what, when, where, who, and why, but also include other interrogative words, such as how. This dependency has been used as a diagnostic tool in syntactic studies as it can be observed to interact with other grammatical constraints.

In linguistics, pied-piping is a phenomenon of syntax whereby a given focused expression brings along an encompassing phrase with it when it is moved.

Topicalization is a mechanism of syntax that establishes an expression as the sentence or clause topic by having it appear at the front of the sentence or clause. This involves a phrasal movement of determiners, prepositions, and verbs to sentence-initial position. Topicalization often results in a discontinuity and is thus one of a number of established discontinuity types, the other three being wh-fronting, scrambling, and extraposition. Topicalization is also used as a constituency test; an expression that can be topicalized is deemed a constituent. The topicalization of arguments in English is rare, whereas circumstantial adjuncts are often topicalized. Most languages allow topicalization, and in some languages, topicalization occurs much more frequently and/or in a much less marked manner than in English. Topicalization in English has also received attention in the pragmatics literature.

In linguistics, antisymmetry is a syntactic theory presented in Richard S. Kayne's 1994 monograph The Antisymmetry of Syntax. It asserts that grammatical hierarchies in natural language follow a universal order, namely specifier-head-complement branching order. The theory builds on the foundation of the X-bar theory. Kayne hypothesizes that all phrases whose surface order is not specifier-head-complement have undergone syntactic movements that disrupt this underlying order. Others have posited specifier-complement-head as the basic word order.

In linguistics, head directionality is a proposed parameter that classifies languages according to whether they are head-initial or head-final. The head is the element that determines the category of a phrase: for example, in a verb phrase, the head is a verb. Therefore, head initial would be "VO" languages and head final would be "OV" languages.

German sentence structure is the structure to which the German language adheres. The basic sentence in German follows SVO word order. Additionally, German, like all west Germanic languages except English, uses V2 word order, though only in independent clauses. In dependent clauses, the finite verb is placed last.

In linguistic typology, a verb–object–subject or verb–object–agent language, which is commonly abbreviated VOS or VOA, is one in which most sentences arrange their elements in that order. That would be the equivalent in English to "Ate apples Sam." The relatively rare default word order accounts for only 3% of the world's languages. It is the fourth-most common default word order among the world's languages out of the six. It is a more common default permutation than OVS and OSV but is significantly rarer than SOV, SVO, and VSO. Families in which all or many of their languages are VOS include the following:

Syntactic movement is the means by which some theories of syntax address discontinuities. Movement was first postulated by structuralist linguists who expressed it in terms of discontinuous constituents or displacement. Some constituents appear to have been displaced from the position in which they receive important features of interpretation. The concept of movement is controversial and is associated with so-called transformational or derivational theories of syntax. Representational theories, in contrast, reject the notion of movement and often instead address discontinuities with other mechanisms including graph reentrancies, feature passing, and type shifters.

In linguistics, inversion is any of several grammatical constructions where two expressions switch their typical or expected order of appearance, that is, they invert. There are several types of subject-verb inversion in English: locative inversion, directive inversion, copular inversion, and quotative inversion. The most frequent type of inversion in English is subject–auxiliary inversion in which an auxiliary verb changes places with its subject; it often occurs in questions, such as Are you coming?, with the subject you being switched with the auxiliary are. In many other languages, especially those with a freer word order than that of English, inversion can take place with a variety of verbs and with other syntactic categories as well.

In syntax, shifting occurs when two or more constituents appearing on the same side of their common head exchange positions in a sense to obtain non-canonical order. The most widely acknowledged type of shifting is heavy NP shift, but shifting involving a heavy NP is just one manifestation of the shifting mechanism. Shifting occurs in most if not all European languages, and it may in fact be possible in all natural languages including sign languages. Shifting is not inversion, and inversion is not shifting, but the two mechanisms are similar insofar as they are both present in languages like English that have relatively strict word order. The theoretical analysis of shifting varies in part depending on the theory of sentence structure that one adopts. If one assumes relatively flat structures, shifting does not result in a discontinuity. Shifting is often motivated by the relative weight of the constituents involved. The weight of a constituent is determined by a number of factors: e.g., number of words, contrastive focus, and semantic content.

In linguistics, a discontinuity occurs when a given word or phrase is separated from another word or phrase that it modifies in such a manner that a direct connection cannot be established between the two without incurring crossing lines in the tree structure. The terminology that is employed to denote discontinuities varies depending on the theory of syntax at hand. The terms discontinuous constituent, displacement, long distance dependency, unbounded dependency, and projectivity violation are largely synonymous with the term discontinuity. There are various types of discontinuities, the most prominent and widely studied of these being topicalization, wh-fronting, scrambling, and extraposition.

Extraposition is a mechanism of syntax that alters word order in such a manner that a relatively "heavy" constituent appears to the right of its canonical position. Extraposing a constituent results in a discontinuity and in this regard, it is unlike shifting, which does not generate a discontinuity. The extraposed constituent is separated from its governor by one or more words that dominate its governor. Two types of extraposition are acknowledged in theoretical syntax: standard cases where extraposition is optional and it-extraposition where extraposition is obligatory. Extraposition is motivated in part by a desire to reduce center embedding by increasing right-branching and thus easing processing, center-embedded structures being more difficult to process. Extraposition occurs frequently in English and related languages.

Subject–verb inversion in English is a type of inversion marked by a predicate verb that precedes a corresponding subject, e.g., "Beside the bed stood a lamp". Subject–verb inversion is distinct from subject–auxiliary inversion because the verb involved is not an auxiliary verb.

In syntax, verb-initial (V1) word order is a word order in which the verb appears before the subject and the object. In the more narrow sense, this term is used specifically to describe the word order of V1 languages. V1 clauses only occur in V1 languages and other languages with a dominant V1 order displaying other properties that correlate with verb-initiality and that are crucial to many analyses of V1. V1 languages are estimated to make up 12–19% of the world’s languages.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Karimi, Simin (November 24, 2008). "Scrambling". Language and Linguistics Compass. 2 (6): 1271–1293.
  2. 1 2 Choi, Hye-Won (August 1996). Optimizing Structure in Context: Scrambling and Information Structure. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications. pp. iv, 33.
  3. Carnie, Andrew (March 2021). Syntax: A Generative Introduction (4th ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN   978-1-119-56931-2.
  4. Karimi, Simin (2008). "Scrambling". Language and Linguistics Compass. 2 (6): 1271–1293. doi:10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00095.x. ISSN   1749-818X.
  5. Yamashita, Hiroko (March 1, 1997). "The Effects of Word-Order and Case Marking Information on the Processing of Japanese". Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 26 (2): 163–188. doi:10.1023/A:1025009615473. ISSN   1573-6555.
  6. Lotfi, Ahmad; Yousefi, Sajedeh (July 2015). "Scrambling in Persian: An Optimality Theoretic Approach" (PDF). International Journal of English and Education. 4 (3).
  7. Biskup, Petr (2006). "Serambling in Czech: syntax, semantics, and information structure" (PDF).{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  8. Gildersleeve, B.L. (1895). Gildersleeve's Latin Grammar. 3rd edition, revised and enlarged by Gonzalez Lodge. Houndmills Basingstoke Hampshire: St. Martin's.
  9. Brut. line 106, cited in Brett Kesler, Discontinuous constituents in Latin (December 26, 1995).
  10. Remedia Amoris, line 445. Quoted in Brett Kesler, Discontinuous constituents in Latin (December 26, 1995), quoting in turn Harm Pinkster (1990), Latin syntax and semantics, London: Routledge, p. 186.
  11. Ode 1.5, lines 1–3.
  12. Translated by John Milton (1673). The word "many" from the phrase multā in rōsā "in/with many a rose" is left out of Milton's translation.
  13. 1 2 3 4 Hinterhölzl, Roland (August 1, 2008). "Gema Chocano: Narrow Syntax and Phonological Form". Linguistische Berichte (LB). 2008 (215): 118–123. doi:10.46771/2366077500215_5. ISSN   2366-0775.
  14. See Groß and Osborne (2009) for a dependency-based analysis of shifting, scrambling, and further mechanisms that alter word order.

Further reading