First 1. Introduction in the Preceding Chapter, We
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Chapter 10 FOCUS: First 1. Introduction In the preceding chapter, we examined two languages from the perspective of FOCUS and its alliance with the Patient function and the morphosyntax of sentence-initial position. The unifying link was a reliance on Behagel’s First Law. One of the conclusions to that discussion was that word order typologies which rely on syntactic (meaningless) tokens do not reveal the relations among languages that our descriptions suggest to be present. Witness the actual connections between the FOCUS initial languages Warao & Urarina, Bella Coola & Yogad, and Haida where their word orders (OVS/OSV, VSO, and no basic order, respectively) show no similarity. A semantic typology (Chapter 13) should be more illuminating. This chapter exists only because some languages have ended by invoking word order in the expression of FOCUS, and they are not random in that usage. Since not all languages turn to word order in signalling FOCUS, not all languages will find a place in this discussion. In that sense, this is not a true typology of FOCUS. But because FOCUS has impinged to shape the syntactic contour of clauses in at least some languages, the phenomenon touches upon the matter of word order typology more generally. Before proceeding to further discussion of FOCUS in relation to biases in its morphosyntactic expression, we will look a bit more at the notion of typing languages with syntactic word order. Recognizing failures in attempts to type languages using orders of the three tokens S, O, and V, Dryer (1997) proposes an alternative based on the couplets OV, VO, SV, and VS. Dryer relies on frequency to identify a basic order and he requires that an order appear at least twice as frequently as its competitors in order to be basic (Dryer 1997.74). Languages seem in this way always to select a basic order from among the couplets OV, VO, SV, and VS, while it is not uncommon for a language to fail to reveal one of the triads (SOV, SVO, etc.) as basic, especially when the 2X criterion is used. This system produces four types: VS&VO, SV&VO, 390 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS SV&OV, and VS&OV. Dryer adduces eight arguments in support of it. First, languages which are indeterminately VSO or VOS (Fijian) now have a typological home in VS&VO. Second, with respect to language types providing “the basis for predicting other typological characteristics” (Dryer 1997.75), collapsing VOS and VSO into the VS&VO type is an advantage since “there are no known differences between VSO and VOS languages.”1 Third, languages that are VSO or VOS “can easily change from one order to the other” (Dryer 1997.76). Fourth, tactically, the observed frequency with which languages elide A and O makes typing them using all three terms of the S, O, and V triumvirate difficult to execute. Using VS&VO and so forth will yield a type while using SVO and so forth will not (again using the 2X frequency criterion) (Dryer 1997.79). Fifth, some languages exploit the morphosyntax of word order so effectively that no single one stands out when using the 2X frequency criterion. Such languages will continue to exemplify one of the four types based on the doublet orders. Sixth, some languages will fail to reveal a choice between VO or OV or between SV or VS, but never both. “It is not clear, for most of the languages cited here, that they can be classified by the traditional typology. The proposed typology allows it to be clear exactly where one can assign a basic order” (Dryer 1997.86). Seventh, the doublet typology recognizes that “the order of the subject and verb is much less important than the order of the object and verb. By distinguishing these two parameters, as the typology proposed here, we explicitly separate out the more important parameter from the less important one” (Dryer 1997.66).2 VO/OV is the “more important parameter” because the VO languages which combine VSO and SVO appear more similar to each other than either does to the OV type, which combines SOV and OSV.3 Eighth, the 1 Except that they are not the same. 2 This is one expression of the pattern of Verb-Object Bonding (Tomlin 1986.73-101). 3 The similarities within this syntactic type can be expressed by other syntactic properties. For example (Dryer 1997.86), SVO languages are like verb-initial languages in being predominately prepositional ...[and] prenominal relative clauses are ... rare in both SVO languages (1%) and verb-initial languages (0%). For various other characteristics too, SVO languages pattern much like verb-initial languages. This demonstrates the validity of the claim that there is a fundamental distinction between VO and OV languages, a distinction which is isolated in the typology proposed here. The claim of similarity between VSO and SVO to the exclusion of OSV/OVS contradicts the fact that VSO, OSV, and OVS languages are that way because they have melded FOCUS with either EVENT/Verb or PATIENT and then associated the result with sentence-initial position. FOCUS: First 391 typology which Dryer proposes easily incorporates intransitive expressions, whereas the alternative S, O, and V typology “is based entirely on the word order of transitive clauses and ignores intransitive clauses” (Dryer 1997.87). Although both Tomlin (1986), as the representative of the traditional six- way typology, and Dryer yearn for some semantic component to their types, it remains by and large elusive.4 Their types are formal ones created with 4 Although the title of Greenberg’s seminal 1963 paper refers to “the Order of Meaningful Elements”, it describes a goal that is as yet unrealized. Tomlin (1986.138-139) There seem to be two paths that typological research must take. In its initial stages, both for the sub-discipline as a whole and for specific studies, attention must be devoted to the systematic observation of structural regularities and variation exhibited cross-linguistically ... But in its second stage typological research turns the order of inquiry around. It begins with the functional principles and inquires how they are manifested structurally in the languages of the world ... By turning the order of inquiry around a new sort of opportunity arises. no structural presuppositions are made, and the resulting typological observations can be more fine grained ... The vocabulary of this new typology continues, however, to be one of how functional “information is manifested cross-linguistically” and not one in terms of how the functional/semantic contents are interrelated independently of its morphosyntax. It continues to be a syntactic typology. It is more motivated, but it is also uncertain that the same syntactic types would emerge. Dryer (1997.82), while proposing a purely syntactic typology based on frequency, nevertheless asks: Do we not also want to say something about what conditions the choice of VS and VO as opposed to the less frequent orders SV and OV [in Hanis Coos and in Papago]? The answer of course is yes ... And clearly what determines the choice among the different orders is more important than the relative frequencies of the different orders. He then points to his answer in this specific case: “Definite nominals generally follow the verb, while indefinite nominals generally precede.” If “what determines the choice” is more important, why is the typology not in terms of that, whatever it may be. Both Tomlin and Dryer end by trying to explain or justify their types. Tomlin 1986 is devoted to explaining the relative frequencies of the types with reference to three functional principles: the Theme First Principle, Verb-Object Bonding, and the Animated First Principle. Except that they are not all functional. Verb-Object Bonding is the name given to a collection of syntactic observations: (i) noun incorporation on the verb prefers objects (Tomlin 1986.79), (ii) sentence qualifies “occur on the side of the verb opposite the object” (Tomlin 1986.81), (iii) “sentence adverbials are not permitted to inervene between the verb and object” (Tomlin 1986.84), (iv) “the distribution of modal elements is such that in general the object is not separated from the verb” (Tomlin 1986.87), and so forth. Verb-Object Bonding is not a “functional principle” (Tomlin 1986.73). As depicted by Tomlin, it is not a principle that is prior to grammar; it follows from observed grammar. In no way can it “shape[...] the grammars of natural languages.” Dryer 1997 only sporadically, as noted above, refers his types to another explanation, and it is not clear that all SV and OV languages would have the same explanation. 392 SYNTAX & SEMANTICS reference to formal criteria. In bypassing semantics and semantic regularities, any such typology is ultimately arbitrary.5 Either way constructs a Procrustean Bed which many languages find uncomfortable. Haida, for example, has no use for ordering in terms of S’s, O’s, and V’s whether arrayed as triplets or doublets. They are simply irrelevant for Haida as they are for Toba Batak (Chapter 28, section 6), which adapts the device of word order to the expression of PROPOSITIONAL ROLES leaving EVENT-PARTICIPANT ROLES to appear with either one of the PROPOSITIONAL ROLES. The regularity of order is then not seen in the occurrence of EVENT-PARTICIPANT ROLES (i.e., S’s, O’s and V’s).6 Toba Batak has used order in a way not recognized by either the six-way word order typology (Greenberg 1963, Tomlin 1986, etc.) or the word order couplets of Dryer (1997, 2013). Palauan, while it seems to be VOS, has its a ... a morphosyntax, a strong complement to the VOS grammar.