INFORMATION STRUCTURE AND WORD ORDER VARIATIONS
Article Sidebar
Published:
Jun 20, 2021
Keywords:
categorical and thetic utterances, inversion, presentative constructions, stage topic
Main Article Content
Abstract
This paper aims to determine the effects of information structure (IS) on word order in standard Macedonian. We classify and describe the linearization patterns of simple sentences according to their communicative goal. The classification is based on the discourse-semantic distinction between categorical and thetic utterances. Sentences that function as categorical judgments typically predicate some property of a contextually known subject referent. Hence they have а binary topic-comment IS reflected in prosody and unmarked SV word order. In contrast, thetic utterances do not predicate a property but introduce a new participant into the discourse (presentative constructions) or report the occurrence of an event. This means that their IS consists only of a focus part, which tends to be marked by subject-predicate inversion. It is presumed that an implicit circumstantial locative or temporal adjunct serves as their stage topic. However, its realization in a sentence-initial position imposes a binary topic-comment IS in presentative sentences, triggering an obligatory subject-predicate inversion.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Article Details
How to Cite
Bužarovska, Eleni. 2021. “INFORMATION STRUCTURE AND WORD ORDER VARIATIONS”. Journal of Contemporary Philology 4 (1), 41–58. https://doi.org/10.37834/JCP21410041b.
Section
Linguistics
Copyright © 2014 Blaže Koneski Faculty of Philology, Skopje
Journal of Contemporary Philology (JCP)
Современа филологија
References
Бужаровска, E. и Митковска, Л. (2018). Реализација на анафорскиот субјект во македонскиот јазик. Современа филологија, 1(2): 29–50.
Бужаровска, Е., Митковска, Л., Киркова-Наскова, А. (2019). Збороредот во простата реченица: инверзија на субјект и предикат. Современа филологија, 2 (2): 7–25.
Иванова, Е. Ю. (2015). Aртиклевая маркиранность имменых групп как средство оформления коммуникативных стретегий говорящего в болгарском языке. Во Е. А. Лютикова, А. В. Циммерлинг, М. Б. Коношенко (ред.). Типология морфоситаксичских параметров, 90–114. Московский педагогический государственный университет: Москва.
Минова-Ѓуркова, Л. (1994). Синтакса на македонскиот стандарден јазик. Скопје: Радинг.
Падучева, Е. (2016). Коммуникативная структура и линейно-акцентные преобразования предложения. Во А. В. Циммерлинг, Е. А. Лютикова (ред.). Архитектура клаузы в параметрических моделях, 25–75. Москва: Языки славянской культуры.
Циммерлинг, А.В. (2016). Линейно-акцентная грамматика и коммуникативно нерасчлененные предложения в русском языке. Во А. В. Циммерлинг, Е. А. Лютикова (ред.). Архитектура клаузы в параметрических моделях, 76–103. Москва: Языки славянской культуры.
Bentley, D., Ciconte, F. M. and Cruschina S. (2015). Locatives in Romance dialects of Italy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Comrie, B. (1989). Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Chafe, W. L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In C. N. Li (ed.). Subject and topic, 27–55. New York: New York Academic Press.
Comrie, B. (1989). Language Universals and Language Typology. Oxford: Blackwell.
Dik, S. C. (1989). The theory of functional grammar. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Erteschik-Shir, N. (1999). Focus structure and scope. Grammar of focus. In G. Rebuschi and L. Tuller (eds.). 119–150. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Erteschik-Shir, N. (2007). Information Structure: The Syntax-Discourse Interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Downing, A. and Locke, P. (2006). English Grammar: A University Course. New York: Routledge.
Fiedler, I. and Schwarz, A. (2010). Introduction. In I. Fiedler and A. Schwarz (eds.). The expression of information structure: A documentation of its diversity across Africa, 7–9. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Givón, T. (1983). Topic continuity and word-order pragmatics in Ute. In T. Givón (ed.). Topic continuity in discourse, 145–195. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N. and Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive Status and the Form of Referring Expressions in Discourse. Language, 2: 274–307.
Halliday, K. A. M. (1967). Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English. Journal of Linguistics, 3 (1): 37–81.
Lahousse, К. (2007). Implicit stage topics. A case study in French. Discours 1:1–23.
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form: topic, focus, and the mental representation of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Prince, E. P. (1992). The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information-status. In W. C. Mann and S. A. Thompson (еds.). Discourse Description: Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text, 295–326. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Runge, S. E. (2006). A Discourse-Functional Description of Participant Reference in Biblical Hebrew Narrative. PhD dissertation. University of Stellenbosch.
Rutherford, W. E. (1989). Interlanguage and pragmatic word order. In S. M. Gass and J. Schachter (eds.), Linguistic perspectives in second language acquisition, 163–182. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sasse, H-J. (1987). The Thetic/Categorial Distinction Revisited. Linguistics, 25: 511–580.
Sasse, H-J. (2006). Theticity. In G. Bernini and M. L. Schwarz (eds.), Pragmatic Organization of Discourse in the Languages of Europe, 255–308. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Schwarz, A. (2010). Discourse principles in grammar: The thetic/categorical dichotomy. In: Proceedings of the Tropics of the Imagination Conference, 2 November 2009, James Cook University, Cairns.
Teixeira, J. (2016). Locative Inversion and Stage Topics: A Cross-Linguistic Study. Discours, 19: 1–28.
Ward, G., Birner, B. J. and Huddleston, R. (2002). Information packaging. In Huddleston, R. and G.K. Pullum, The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, 1363–1447. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Бужаровска, Е., Митковска, Л., Киркова-Наскова, А. (2019). Збороредот во простата реченица: инверзија на субјект и предикат. Современа филологија, 2 (2): 7–25.
Иванова, Е. Ю. (2015). Aртиклевая маркиранность имменых групп как средство оформления коммуникативных стретегий говорящего в болгарском языке. Во Е. А. Лютикова, А. В. Циммерлинг, М. Б. Коношенко (ред.). Типология морфоситаксичских параметров, 90–114. Московский педагогический государственный университет: Москва.
Минова-Ѓуркова, Л. (1994). Синтакса на македонскиот стандарден јазик. Скопје: Радинг.
Падучева, Е. (2016). Коммуникативная структура и линейно-акцентные преобразования предложения. Во А. В. Циммерлинг, Е. А. Лютикова (ред.). Архитектура клаузы в параметрических моделях, 25–75. Москва: Языки славянской культуры.
Циммерлинг, А.В. (2016). Линейно-акцентная грамматика и коммуникативно нерасчлененные предложения в русском языке. Во А. В. Циммерлинг, Е. А. Лютикова (ред.). Архитектура клаузы в параметрических моделях, 76–103. Москва: Языки славянской культуры.
Bentley, D., Ciconte, F. M. and Cruschina S. (2015). Locatives in Romance dialects of Italy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Comrie, B. (1989). Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Chafe, W. L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In C. N. Li (ed.). Subject and topic, 27–55. New York: New York Academic Press.
Comrie, B. (1989). Language Universals and Language Typology. Oxford: Blackwell.
Dik, S. C. (1989). The theory of functional grammar. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Erteschik-Shir, N. (1999). Focus structure and scope. Grammar of focus. In G. Rebuschi and L. Tuller (eds.). 119–150. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Erteschik-Shir, N. (2007). Information Structure: The Syntax-Discourse Interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Downing, A. and Locke, P. (2006). English Grammar: A University Course. New York: Routledge.
Fiedler, I. and Schwarz, A. (2010). Introduction. In I. Fiedler and A. Schwarz (eds.). The expression of information structure: A documentation of its diversity across Africa, 7–9. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Givón, T. (1983). Topic continuity and word-order pragmatics in Ute. In T. Givón (ed.). Topic continuity in discourse, 145–195. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N. and Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive Status and the Form of Referring Expressions in Discourse. Language, 2: 274–307.
Halliday, K. A. M. (1967). Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English. Journal of Linguistics, 3 (1): 37–81.
Lahousse, К. (2007). Implicit stage topics. A case study in French. Discours 1:1–23.
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form: topic, focus, and the mental representation of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Prince, E. P. (1992). The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information-status. In W. C. Mann and S. A. Thompson (еds.). Discourse Description: Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text, 295–326. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Runge, S. E. (2006). A Discourse-Functional Description of Participant Reference in Biblical Hebrew Narrative. PhD dissertation. University of Stellenbosch.
Rutherford, W. E. (1989). Interlanguage and pragmatic word order. In S. M. Gass and J. Schachter (eds.), Linguistic perspectives in second language acquisition, 163–182. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sasse, H-J. (1987). The Thetic/Categorial Distinction Revisited. Linguistics, 25: 511–580.
Sasse, H-J. (2006). Theticity. In G. Bernini and M. L. Schwarz (eds.), Pragmatic Organization of Discourse in the Languages of Europe, 255–308. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Schwarz, A. (2010). Discourse principles in grammar: The thetic/categorical dichotomy. In: Proceedings of the Tropics of the Imagination Conference, 2 November 2009, James Cook University, Cairns.
Teixeira, J. (2016). Locative Inversion and Stage Topics: A Cross-Linguistic Study. Discours, 19: 1–28.
Ward, G., Birner, B. J. and Huddleston, R. (2002). Information packaging. In Huddleston, R. and G.K. Pullum, The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, 1363–1447. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.