Refine
Document Type
- Article (5) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (5)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (5) (remove)
Keywords
- Wortstellung (5) (remove)
Institute
In attempting to reconstruct the morphosyntax of Proto-Sino-Tibetan, one of the most basic questions to be answered is what was the unmarked word order of the proto-language? Chinese, Bai, and Karen are verb-medial languages, while all of the Tibeto-Burman languages except for Bai and Karen have verb-final word order. lf these languages are all related, as we can assume from lexical correspondences, then either Chinese, Bai and Karen changed from verb-final to verb-medial word order, or the other Tibeto-Burman languages changed trom verb-medial to verb-final order. How we answer the question of which languages changed their word would then give us the answer to the question of word order in Proto-Sino-Tibetan.
On describing word order
(2006)
One aspect that is always discussed in language descriptions, no matter how short they may be, is word order. Beginning with Greenberg 1963, it has been common to talk about word order using expressions such as "X is an SOV language", where "S" represents "subject", "0" represents "object", and "V" represents "verb". Statements such as this are based on an assumption of comparability, an assumption that all languages manifest the categories represented by "S", "0", and "V" (among others), and that word order in all languages can be described (and compared) using these categories.
This paper corroborates the interpretability proposal of Chomsky (1995) with evidence from scrambling in Japanese and German. First it is shown that scrambling in Japanese is semantically vacuous, whereas scrambling in German is semantically contentful. Chomsky’s proposal then predicts that the feature driving Japanese scrambling is erased after checking, while the corresponding feature in German remains visible, specifically for the Shortest Attract condition. Looking at patterns of movement that result in overlapping paths, this prediction is seen to be correct.
Red surečenica
(2009)
Pitanje reda surečenica u posljedičnim rečenicama, tj. mogućnost njihova premetanja (obrtanja), jedno je od onih nerijetkih pitanja u hrvatskome jezikoslovlju koje se smatra riješenim, a da se nitko njime nije valjano i sustavno bavio. Jednodušno se i beziznimno naime smatra da je red surečenica u posljedičnim rečenicama (i red surečenica u nekim drugim zavisnosloženim rečenicama) glavna surečenica – zavisna surečenica stalan i neobratljiv. Nije međutim točna tvrdnja da zavisnosložene rečenice za razliku od nezavisnosloženih mogu premetati red surečenica i da to ne vrijedi samo za posljedične i neke druge rečenice. Naime u nekim tipovima posljedičnih i drugih rečenica, pokazuje se to u ovome radu, zavisna surečenica može prethoditi glavnoj, tj. njezine sastavnice mogu zamijeniti mjesta.