Interaction of Syntactic and Pragmatic Factors on Basic Word Order in the Languages of Europe

i i 357 $Id: M-bernini.tex,v 1.23 2006/06/09 08:43:59 eyrich Exp $ | 4/10 12:54 | #19 i i Rosanna Sornicola Interaction of syntactic and pragmatic factors on basic word order in the languages of Europe 1. Theoretical and methodological foundations1 1.1. A pragmatic study of word order The study which is the subject of the present work is an attempt to arrive at an integrated view of the interplay of the various levels of analysis – especially the syntactic and pragmatic ones – on the typology of basic constituent order.2 Adopting such a perspective represents a move away from traditional typological research. A preliminary explanation is required so that, on the one hand, the concepts and terminology of a “pragmatic study” of word order (henceforth, WO) may be clarified and, on the other, that attention may be drawn to the consequences they have for the typological approach followed here. In a more restricted and technical sense, the study offers a pragmatic perspective because the effects of pragmatic functions on the “dynamics” of rules of order is considered crucial (cf. Section 1.8). But the term “pragmatic” is also used here with a less technical and wider meaning, one which is linked to the first but which goes beyond it in many respects. In this sense the term “pragmatic” would be better understood as equivalent to “functional.” Three concepts may be defined that characterize the wider meaning of the term “pragmatic” used here. They are in turn interrelated: the multifactoriality,thefunc- tion,andtheactual conditions of WO. The present study has a multifactorial viewpoint. Constituents are seen as carri- ers of grammatical functions (GF), semantic functions (SF), and pragmatic functions (PF). This representation goes back to an integrated conception of grammatical structures, the properties of which are considered with reference to the interplay of the (syntactic), semantic, and pragmatic grammatical levels. Such a conception is all the more indispensable in the study of order structures, in that these may be subject to al- teration of a greater or lesser degree,3 according to variation in the functional values associated with the representation of the constituents. For example, an NP with the GF S may occur in very different structural positions according to whether it has the PF of TOPIC or FOCUS. On the other hand, an NP with the PF of FOCUS may have i i i i i i 358 $Id: M-bernini.tex,v 1.23 2006/06/09 08:43:59 eyrich Exp $ | 4/10 12:54 | #20 i i 358 Rosanna Sornicola a different distribution according to whether it is syntactically encoded as S or as O and/or whether it has the SF of agent (= A) or of patient (= P). The options relating to a particular distribution are, of course, dependent on the typological characteristics of the various languages. The second key concept is that of the function of WO within individual languages and within types of languages. This regards the need to study the interaction of syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic properties and of other factors, rhythmic and prosodic for example, in determining neutral and non-neutral orders. The attempt to analyze the function of WO may therefore be understood as an attempt to ascertain not only what may be defined as the “static” dimension of the WO, in other words, neutral orders, but also its dynamics, that is, the non-neutral or marked orders.4 As will be seen, the latter have essentially to do with a pragmatic conception. In a certain sense, it may be said that while neutral orders are considered “static,” marked orders are “dynamic.” Corresponding to this intuition is the fact that, in some approaches, non- neutral or marked WO phenomena have been represented as the effect of syntactic “processes” on basic structures.5 In its multifactorial consideration of constituent order and constituent function, the present study is linked to the European functionalist tradition6 as well as to more recent issues concerning WO “flexibility.”7 The third concept which defines our approach concerns the central importance giventotheactual conditions under which WO phenomena arise. In concrete terms, it has involved constant attention to contextual factors, the type of text, variation in the written/spoken register, and, wherever possible, what is traditionally described as “stylistics,” in other words, idiosyncratic variation in individual writers/speakers. Attention to actual conditions has meant attention also to the diachrony of WO mechanisms: from time to time, where documentation has been available, it has seemed appropriate to try and take into account the permanence or discontinuity of a WO property. In fact, variability or continuity of WO patterns over time seems to consti- tute an important typological parameter. 1.2. Word order between competence and performance Some of the factors just mentioned concern pragmatic competence, others are con- nected to discourse planning or perceptual strategies more closely related to performance. In fact, a good part of what has been called the “dynamics” of WO phenomena, for example the characteristic pragmatic processes of emphasizing topicaliza- tion or focalization by means of WO, seems to concern the vast intermediate area between competence and performance. On the methodological level, it has meant the use of data elicited by means of grammaticality judgements and, more generally, idealization techniques, as well as data gathered from actual texts. i i i i i i 359 $Id: M-bernini.tex,v 1.23 2006/06/09 08:43:59 eyrich Exp $ | 4/10 12:54 | #21 i i Interaction of syntactic and pragmatic factors 359 Although attention has been paid to the intermediate area between competence and performance and to structures actually produced, this has not, however, meant that cognitive or perceptual factors have been given pre-eminence in the study of WO. While this seems to be a legitimate area of research (psycholinguistic factors are indeed of paramount importance in empirical issues concerning WO),8 it was decided that preference should be given to linguistic examination of the strategies which determine WO structures in the various languages. Of course, concepts such as TOPIC and FOCUS have a cognitive content which is not easily modeled. This is perhaps one of the reasons which have made it difficult to arrive at unanimously accepted definitions of PFs (cf. Section 1.8 and thereafter). Nonetheless, a linguistic modeling may and should be sought. With view to a typological comparison in particular, it seemed necessary in fact not to overestimate so-called “natural” or “iconic” factors. Such overestimation seems to be the modern form of an old idea concerning the existence of a relationship between word order and the order of thoughts. But the choice of a truly linguistic modeling arises from another necessity. The exploration of psycholinguistic factors takes us closer to the mechanisms of performance and these, in turn, characterize “stylistic” (individual) variation rather than the typological properties of the language.9 It is true, in any case, that the problem of linearization of constituents, of “how to get words into line”10 remains a crucial one for WO. The question regarding the relationship between linearization in performance, always and inevitably text-oriented and individual, and linearization as a characteristic of a language, or more especially of a linguistic type, appears here in all its complexity. It is an aspect of a broader problem concerning the relationship between performance and competence, rendered more difficult by the inherent variability of WO patterns. This variability, which, as will be seen, also characterizes languages with so-called “rigid” constituent order, often makes definition of a “type” problematic. The concept of variability may be understood in differing ways. It may be understood as sensitivity to the combination of interacting factors, or as the co-existence of sometimes very different patterns in the language, which may be explained only by the contribution made by historical and sociolinguistic conditions. In considering the structural properties that determine a type, one must not forget to take into account the extent to which it has been formed by “educated” normativization, from above, how far it relates to spontaneous developments in the spoken language (see Sornicola 1981; Miller and Weinert 1998)), and also the extent to which it is the continuation or persistence of old inherited patterns and how much it is due to the external influence of prestigious languages, such as Latin or Greek.11 This is all the more important in an investigation into the typology of the languages of Europe, which over the span of several millennia have been exposed to very complex and multi-layered cultural influences. But it would be wrong to confine the problem of interference to the languages of Europe that have been exposed to the Latin and/or i i i i i i 360 $Id: M-bernini.tex,v 1.23 2006/06/09 08:43:59 eyrich Exp $ | 4/10 12:54 | #22 i i 360 Rosanna Sornicola Greek superstratum. It also arises, in a different but no less important way, in the languages of Inner Asia, for which, in absence of written documents prior to the eighth century AD, it is impossible to carry out a reconstruction of their linguistic history. As Denis Sinor (1990) observes: The nature of the relationship between the Uralic (Finno-Ugric and Samoyed) and Altaic (Turkic, Mongol and Tunguz) languages which, as far back as the available data allow us to go, have constituted the dominant linguistic group in the forest and tundra zones of Inner Asia, cannot be established with any degree of certainty.

Load more