Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:16:51.320Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

22 - Morphosyntactic Reflexes of Information Structure

from Part 3 - Syntax

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2024

By
Elena Titov
Edited by
Danko Šipka  and
Wayles Browne
Danko Šipka
Affiliation:
Arizona State University
Wayles Browne
Affiliation:
Cornell University, New York
Get access

Summary

Slavic languages are notorious for rich inflectional systems, allowing substantial freedom in word order. Aside from SVO word order, canonical for the great majority of Slavic languages, orders with arguments surfacing in non-canonical positions are also allowed. We consider two such orders – OVS and OSV. The two orders stem from two different types of argument reordering with distinct syntactic, interpretive and prosodic properties. The first is linked to neutral prosody and is licenced by the object being construed as interpretively prominent compared to the subject. The object undergoing this type of reordering binds into the subject and takes scope over it. This reordering is possible only if the thematic prominence relations of arguments are identified by means other than their relative structural position. The second type is linked to marked prosody and is licenced by the displaced object being disambiguated as contrastive. In this type of reordering the object cannot bind into the subject or take scope over it. This type of reordering is possible only if the object carries a strong prosodic marker.

Keywords

information structureinflectionsyntaxmorphologyprosody
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Slavic Linguistics , pp. 477 - 498
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bailyn, J. F. (2004). Generalized inversion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 22, 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailyn, J. F. (2018). Russian word order and the fate of syntactic theory. Paper presented at the Conference on Typology of Morphosyntactic Parameters, Moscow, October 2018.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. (2002). On multiple wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry, 33(3), 351–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryzgunova, E. (1971). O smyslorazličitel’nyx vozmožnostjax russkoj intonacii. Voprosy jazykoznanija, 4, 42–51.Google Scholar
Bryzgunova, E. (1981). Zvuk i intonacija russkoj reči, Moscow: Russkij jazyk.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The Sound Pattern of English, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chvany, C. V. (1973). Notes on root and structure-preserving in Russian. In Corum, C. W., Cedric Smith-Stark, T., & Weiser, A., eds., You Take the High Node and I’ll Take the Low Node, Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 52–290.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G. & Lenertová, D. (2011). Left peripheral focus: Mismatches between syntax and information structure. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 29, 169–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firbas, J. (1964). On defining the theme in functional sentence analysis. Travaux linguistiques de Prague, 1, 267–280.Google Scholar
Firbas, J. (1971). On the concept of communicative dynamism in the theory of functional sentence perspective. Sborník prací Filozofické fakulty Brněnské univerzity A, 19, 135–144.Google Scholar
Firbas, J. (1974). Some aspects of the Czechoslovak approach to problems of functional sentence perspective. In Daneš, F., ed., Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective, Prague: Academia.Google Scholar
Firbas, J. (1984). Carriers of communicative dynamism. Prague Studies in English, 18, 63–73.Google Scholar
Geist, L. (2008). Specificity as referential anchoring: Evidence from Russian. In Grønn, A., ed., Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 12, Oslo: University of Oslo, pp. 151–164.Google Scholar
Hlavsa, Z. (1975). Denotace objektu a její prostředky v současné češtině, Prague: Academia.Google Scholar
Ionin, T. (2001). Scope in Russian: Quantifier Movement and Discourse Function. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
Ionin, T. (2002). The one girl who was kissed by every boy: Scope, scrambling, and discourse function in Russian. In van Koppen, M., Sio, J., & de Vos, M., eds., Proceedings of ConSOLE X, Leiden, pp. 79–94.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1984). Morphological observations on Slavic declension (The structure of Russian case forms). In Waugh, L. R. & Halle, M., eds., Russian and Slavic Grammar: Studies 1931–1981, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 105–133. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110822885.105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jasinskaja, K. (2016). Information structure in Slavic. In Féry, C. & Ishihara, S., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jasinskaja, K. & Šimík, R. (forthcoming). Slavonic free word order. In Fellerer, J. & Bermel, N., eds., The Oxford Guide to Slavonic Languages, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
King, T. H. (1995). Configuring Topic and Focus in Russian, Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Krámský, J. (1972). The Article and the Concept of Definiteness in Language, The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuboň, V., Lopatková, M., & Hercig, T. (2016). Searching for a measure of word order freedom. In CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 1649, 11–17. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1649/11.pdf.Google Scholar
Kučerová, I. (2007). The Syntax of Givenness. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information Structure and Sentence Form, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavine, J. & Freidin, R. (2002). The subject of defective T(ense) in Slavic. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 10(1), 253–289.Google Scholar
Mahajan, A. (1990). The A/A-Bar Distinction and Movement Theory. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Müller, G. (2004). On decomposing inflection class features: Syncretism in Russian noun inflection. In Müller, G., Gunkel, L., & Zifonun, G., eds., Explorations in Nominal Inflection, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 189–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereltsvaig, A. (2019). Is the OVS order in Russian like that in Hixkaryana? Talk given at FASL 29, Stony Brook, May 3–5, 2019.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1976). The Syntactic Domain of Anaphora. PhD dissertation, MIT. http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/16400.Google Scholar
Rudin, C. (1997). Kakvo li e li: Interrogation and focusing in Bulgarian. Balkanistica, 10, 335–346.Google Scholar
Sgall, P., Hajičová, E., & Panevová, J. (1986). The Meaning of the Sentence in Its Semantic and Pragmatic Aspects, Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Siewierska, A. & Uhlířová, L. (1998). An overview of word order in Slavic languages. In Siewierska, A., ed., Constituent Order in the Languages of Europe, Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 105–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szwedek, A. (1974). A note on the relation between the article in English and word order in Polish (Part 1 and 2). Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics, 2, 213–225.Google Scholar
Titov, E. (2012). Information Structure of Argument Order Alternations. PhD thesis, University College London.Google Scholar
Titov, E. (2013a). Scrambling and interfaces. In Bildhauer, F. & Grubic, M., eds., Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure. Vol. 17. Information Structure: Empirical Perspectives on Theory, Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam, pp. 33–53.Google Scholar
Titov, E. (2013b). Do contrastive topics exist? Journal of Linguistics, 49(2), 413–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Titov, E. (2017). The canonical order of Russian objects. Linguistic Inquiry, 48(3), 427–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Titov, E. (2019). Accusative unaccusatives. In Brown, J., Schmidt, A., & Wierzba, M., eds., Of Trees and Birds: A Festschrift in Honour of Gisbert Fanselow, Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam, pp. 243–256.Google Scholar
Titov, E. (2020). Optionality of movement. Syntax, 23(4), 347–374. https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yokoyama, O. (1986). Discourse and Word Order, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×