[Lingtyp] Subject-verb inversion with transitive verbs

Wed Apr 15 06:00:25 UTC 2020

Dear Ernei,

In my investigations of word order inversion and left and right 
dislocation in spoken varieties of Aramaic I found that the presence or 
absence of prosodic boundaries made a crucial difference to their 
function and interpretation. I attach a paper I wrote on this some years 
ago. My impresssion is that cross-linguistic comparisons on this topic 
are hampered by the fact that many descriptive grammars do not indicate 
prosodic boundaries when discussing word order or when transcribing texts.

Best wishes

Geoffrey

On 14/04/2020 13:48, Haspelmath, Martin wrote:
> Since (impressionistically) right dislocation seems to be common in the
> world's languages, we first need a cross-linguistically valid definition
> (= a comparative concept) of "right dislocation".
>
> In Ellison's examples, there is a comma before the postverbal subject
> nominal, and in many languages, there seems to be an obligatory
> "prosodic break" in such sentences. I'm not sure how such "breaks" can
> be identified across languages, but it seems that this would be
> necessary before we can have a cross-linguistically valid notion of
> "right dislocation".
>
> Once we have this, we can have a comparative concept of "SV/VS
> flexibility" (the term "S-V inversion" is not felicitous, as Christian
> Lehmann pointed out). It seems difficult, but hopefully it is not
> impossible.
>
> Best,
> Martin
>
> On 14.04.20 14:28, Ellison Luk wrote:
>> Dear Ernei,
>>
>> One question that I had about your examples is whether or not you are also counting right dislocation phenomena under your definition of "inversion". I assume you are since you include the Japanese example, which would be described more as an example of (right) dislocation (Kohji 2018), since Tarō-ga would be post-verbal, in the right periphery. If you are, then (Mandarin) Chinese would actually also allow such 'inversion' phenomena, given that right dislocation is amply attested in colloquial/spoken varieties of both Mandarin and Cantonese (to name two). From the following examples, you can see that the transitive subject can be extracted "over" the verb and transitive object (in my intuition, the commas shouldn't represent necessary prosodic breaks). If you would allow these examples then, Cantonese and Mandarin (and probably many other Sinitic languages) would seem to satisfy your category of "no case or agreement, inversion in transitive clauses possible". Of course, these are subject to restrictions, but again, so would the case be for Japanese and other languages you are investigating.
>>
>> Mandarin
>> 踩我的腳了，你
>> cai3 wo3 jiao3 le, ni3.
>> step I foot PEFT you
>> "(You) stepped on my foot, you." (Guo 1999: 1107)
>>
>> Cantonese
>> 唔 拎 把 遮 喇，我
>> mm4 ling1 ba2 ze1 la3, ngo2
>> not bring CL umbrella SFP , I
>> "I am not bringing the umbrella." (Lai et al 2017)
>>
>> Cantonese
>> 會買一部電腦囉，佢
>> wui2 maai2 jat1 bou5 din6nou5 lo1, keoi2
>> will buy one CL computer SFP, he
>> "He will buy a computer." (Cheung 2009, cited in Lee 2013: 16)
>>
>> Guo, Jian Sheng (1999). 'From information to emotion: The affective function of right dislocation in Mandarin Chinese'. Journal of Pragmatics, 31: 1103–1128.
>> Cheung, Lawrence Yam-Leung (2009). 'Dislocation focus construction in Chinese.' Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 18: 197-232.
>> Kamada, Kohji (2018). Rightward movement phenomena in linguistics. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle on Tyne, UK.
>> Lai, Christy Choi-Tin, Law, Sam-Po, & Kong, Anthony Pak-Hin (2017). 'A Quantitative Study of Right Dislocation in Cantonese Spoken Discourse.' Language and speech, 60(4): 633–642.
>> Lee, Kent (2013). 'Right dislocation in Chinese: Interface of syntax and information structure.' Korean Journal of Chinese Language and Literature, 55: 3-50.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Ellison Kingman Luk
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2020 22:22:30 +0900
>> From: Ernei Ribeiro <ernei8299 at gmail.com>
>> To: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>> Subject: [Lingtyp] Subject-verb inversion with transitive verbs
>> Message-ID:
>> 	<CAEUtgNY-XNmSqDF2ywszZyxVA1-JB1Yw2DzSACLBCXeYBE=f_g at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Languages like Spanish or Italian have a default, unmarked word order SVO that is most compatible with discourse contexts where no part of the clause is focused. However, these languages also display an alternative VS word order in declarative sentences, sometimes depending on discourse context and notions such as topic and focus. This alternative word order is illustrated in (1a) and (1b) with Italian and Spanish examples.
>> Subject-verb inversion with transitive verbs is not possible in English, as shown in (1c).
>>
>> (1)
>>
>> a.
>> *Ha*
>> *mangiato*
>> *un*
>> *dolce*
>> *il*
>> *ragazzo**.*
>> (Italian)
>>
>> has
>> eaten
>> a
>> dessert
>> the
>> young man
>>
>> b.
>> *Sabe*
>> *la*
>> *lección*
>> *María**.*
>> (Spanish)
>>
>> knows
>> the
>> lesson
>> María
>>
>> c.
>> **In this rainforest can find a lucky hiker the reclusive lyrebird.*
>> (English)
>>
>> It is generally assumed (Barbosa 2009) that languages like Spanish or Italian allow subject-verb inversion with transitive verbs because they have rich agreement, while English or French do not allow such inversion because they have poor agreement.
>>
>> Subject-verb inversion with transitive verbs is also seen in languages without agreement. Japanese allows subject inversion, as shown in (2ab), while Chinese does not, as seen in (2cd). This is clearly related to the fact that Japanese has case morphology on nouns, while Chinese does not.
>>
>> (2)
>> a.
>> *Tarō-ga*
>> *kēki-o*
>> *tabe-mashita.*
>> (Japanese)
>>
>> Taro-NOM
>> cake-ACC
>> ate
>>
>> b.
>> *kēki-o*
>> *tabe-mashita,*
>> *Tarō-ga*
>> cake-ACC
>> ate
>> Taro-NOM
>>
>> ‘Taro ate cake.’
>>
>> c.
>> *Zhangsan*
>> *da*
>> *dianhua*
>> *le*
>> (Chinese)
>>
>> Zhangsan
>> make
>> phone-call
>> ASP
>>
>> d.
>> **da*
>> *dianhua*
>> *le*
>> *Zhangsan*
>> make
>> phone-call
>> ASP
>> Zhangsan
>>
>> ‘Zangsan made a phone call.’
>>
>> Note that English and Chinese might sometimes allow subject-verb inversion involving intransitive verbs, as in the English directive inversion in (3a) and the Chinese clause with an indefinite subject in (3b).
>>
>> (3)
>> a.
>> *Into the room came two students.*
>> (English)
>>
>> b.
>> *lai*
>> *le*
>> *keren*
>> (Chinese)
>>
>> come
>> ASP
>> guest
>>
>> ‘There came (some) guests.’
>>
>> I am searching for possible exceptions to the aforementioned generalizations, that is:
>>
>> (4) Are there languages without agreement and without case morphology on nouns that allow subject-verb inversion with transitive verbs?
>>
>> (5) Are there languages with poor agreement and without case morphology on nouns that allow subject-verb inversion with transitive verbs?
>>
>> (6) Are there languages with rich agreement that DO NOT allow subject-verb inversion with transitive verbs?
>>
>> (7) Are there languages with case morphology on nouns that DO NOT allow subject-verb inversion with transitive verbs?
>>
>>
>> Many linguists have noted that it is difficult to define “rich agreement.”
>> For the time being, I will consider agreement to be “rich” if it distinguishes six or more person, number and gender combinations, as in the Spanish present tense conjugation of the verb ‘eat’ in (8a). I will consider agreement to be “poor” if it distinguishes five or fewer such combinations, as in the English present tense in (8b).
>>
>> (8)
>> a.
>> 1SG
>> *com-o*
>>
>> b.
>> 1SG
>> *eat-Ø*
>>
>> 2SG
>> *com-es*
>>
>> 2SG
>> *eat-Ø*
>>
>> 3SG
>> *com-e*
>>
>> 3SG
>> *eat-s*
>>
>> 1PL
>> *com-emos*
>>
>> 1PL
>> *eat-Ø*
>>
>> 2PL
>> *com-éis*
>>
>> 2PL
>> *eat-Ø*
>>
>> 3PL
>> *com-en*
>>
>> 3PL
>> *eat-Ø*
>>
>> Reference
>> Barbosa, Pilar. "Two kinds of subject pro." Studia Linguistica 63.1 (2009): 2-58.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Ernei
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lingtyp mailing list
>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
-- 
Geoffrey Khan
Regius Professor of Hebrew
University of Cambridge

Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies
Sidgwick Avenue
Cambridge CB3 9DA
UK

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Khan 2016 Left Dislocation in NENA Stellenbosch.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 245454 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20200415/d6b6917f/attachment.pdf>