Word Order and Zero Anaphora
Wayne Leman
wleman at mcn.net
Fri Oct 6 22:02:03 EDT 2000
Clay replied:
>
> A clause initial what? If the main verb is clause initial do we say that
it
> is filling the pragmatic "slot" in clause initial position?
Yes, if that is how the pragmatics of the language works. That is what my
wife found for Cheyenne. This makes sense cognitively, also. Once you have
established in the discourse who the participants (via subject and object
positions) what is next needed mostly is telling what these participants
did, that is a string of verbs in temporal sequence. At least this is true
for narrative discourse. (And, of course, there are exceptions, as there are
to every "rule," such as for counter-temporal sequencing.) If the main
information contributed by a clause (and I have come to believe that each
clause--or proposition--of a language basically contributes one "new" or
"important" piece of information to a discourse is verbal, then we expect
the verb to appear in the position for pragmatic focus.
I don't think
> so. If the main verb is clause initial in a Koine Greek clause we say that
> the pragmatic "slot" in clause initial position empty or null.
Hmm? How's that?
This is in a
> sense assuming what we are trying to prove, I will admit, but lets drop
that
> issue and digresses a bit shall we?
>
> ***digression***
>
> Keep in mind that when I talk about marked and unmarked word order
patterns
> that I am not just thinking SV or VS or SVO or VSO or VO or OV. I am also
> thinking about pragmatic patterns as well.
Very good.
>
> For example, if we say that Old Information (OI) normally precedes New
> Information (NI) then we are making a statement about an unmarked word
order
> relative to pragmatic function.
Oh, OK. I had assumed everyone was only speaking of the usual SVO references
to word order. This changes the entire discussion if we bring in pragmatic
functions to discussion of word order. Now we've got even more that we
should be able to get a better handle on.
> If the unmarked pattern in Koine Greek is
> OI -> NI then a clause which begins with NI is going to be a marked word
> order clause is it not?
Yes, and, as always, we want to try to discover what the function is for
breaking the expected order.
>
> This is a logical problem, you don't need to gather any data at all to
> understand this issue. In Kantian terms this is analytic.
>
> If we proceed from the OI -> NI pattern, assume that we have an agreement
on
> this pattern, then we can ask ourselves questions about the positions of
> Subjects and Objects.
>
> Givon states the pragmatic Subject of a clause is rarely New Information
> (NI). His argument for this is quite convincing. If that is the case then
we
> might conclude that in a unmarked NT Greek clause the pragmatic Subject is
> likely to appear prior to the constituent which presents the NI. The main
> verb of a clause is not as likely to present NI as some constituent in
the
> complement but it is possible for the main verb to present the NI.
>
> Therefore, in a clause where the main verb presents the NI we would say
that
> SV word order is unmarked. If the main verb presents NI and we have VS
word
> order than we have to find out why,
Precisely
>because this is a marked word order and
> there is going to be some reason the author chose to do this.
There usually is some reason, even if it resists identification for some
time.
>
> According to Givon, the most likely place for New Information (NI) is in
the
> complement (e.g., direct object, indirect object, etc.).
I think he is speaking of typical expectations and discourse. But, as usual,
there can be exceptions. I mean like,
I love studying languages.
Hebrew is fun,
but Greek, I love.
"Greek" is in pragmatic focus in my last clause because it is contrastive or
emphasized, which is a high level of pragmatic focus. Normally, however, I
would say
I love Greek ...
> A clause were
> the NI is presented in the complement should have both the Subject and the
> Main Verb prior to the complement. This says nothing about the VS or SV
> patterns, it just says that the complement will follow both Subject and
Main
> Verb.
>
> Now I don't claim that this is a proof of anything at all. The assumption
> that OI -> NI is the unmarked pragmatic constituent order in K. Greek
needs
> to be verified first. I am just showing how one might proceed starting
with
> discourse pragmatics to make statements about marked and unmarked
> constituent order in K. Greek.
Well done. Now, Studious One, get your graph paper out and start charting
your best guesses about old, new, contrastive, etc. information categories
(as you probably know already, there are more information categories than
just new and old).
BTW, try to read some of Ellen Prince's articles on information categories.
She should be listed in Givon's bibliographies.
>
> There are a number of other pragmatic patterns that could be observed but
> Old Information ---> New Information pattern is fairly easy to nail down
so
> it is a good place to start.
Old hat, so to speak!
>
> Thanks for your comments Wayne,
You're welcome. This is fun stuff for me, Clay. I hope it's OK to continue
this on B-Greek. It really does concern Greek, it's just out of the range of
studies for many Greek afficionados.
Wayne
---
Wayne Leman
Bible translation site: http://bibletranslation.lookscool.com/
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list