Документ взят из кэша поисковой машины. Адрес оригинального документа : http://www.philol.msu.ru/~otipl/new/fdsl/abstracts/slioussar.pdf Дата изменения: Sun Nov 9 20:23:56 2008 Дата индексирования: Wed Jan 14 13:53:33 2009 Кодировка:

Russian data call for relational Information Structure notions
We will argue that it is necessary and advantageous to introduce relational notions in the Information Structure (IS) field (such as more / less accessible instead of given / new). Corpus studies (e.g. Sirotinina 1965) show that the neutral word order is `IO DO' in Russian. The inverse `DO IO' order was traditionally associated with DO giveness and narrow focus. Among generative studies, this was extensively discussed in (Junghanns & Zybatow 1995). However, in (1b) and (2b) both the IO and the DO are new and part of focus. In (1b), the DO is interpreted as less salient than the IO as a result of reordering. In (2b), the DO is perceived as more accessible (by virtue of being more predictable). In (3), the whole sentence is in focus, but the subject is interpreted as more salient. (1) a. Mnogie mizantropy o en' ljubjat ivotnyx. `Many misanthropes really love animals.' (1) b. Segodnja moj na al'nik otdal svoj buterbrod Today [my boss].NOM gave [his. sandwich]. (2) a. A: to ty delae '? `What are you doing?'
SG ACC

golodnoj sobake! [hungry dog].DAT

(2) b. B: Pi u write.1PERS.

pis'mo mame. letter.ACC mom.DAT

eloveka ukusila be enaja lisa. (3) Redkij slu aj v gubernii: (a rare case in the province) man.ACC bit [rabid fox].NOM First, these examples show that not only categorical notions, such as singular or interrogative, but also relational notions, such as less salient or more accessible, can be encoded in syntax. Second, they present an important argument against feature-based IS theories (like Rizzi 1997) and for configurational approaches (like Reinhart 1995, 2006), thus bearing on the most important ongoing debate in the IS field (features like more accessible than are impossible). Relying on these observations, we will propose an IS model based on relative accessibility and salience (subsuming contrast and emphasis). We will argue that the necessary syntactic configurations are best derived with edge features introduced in Chomsky (2008), which allow for `free' movement without agreeing features. Chomsky illustrates how edge features can be used to explain topicalization. He argues that IS features are unnecessary and the raised constituent is identified as a topic by the final position it reaches. For Chomsky, the 'right position' for topicalization is a specifier of some FP in the C domain. Since we deal with relative notions, we need to modify this assumption: for us, it is a relative position with respect to other elements. If the object is higher than the subject, as in (4a) below, it is interpreted as more accessible (more topical). If the subject is the most embedded element and bears the main stress, as in (3), it is interpreted as less accessible or/and more salient than other elements. We will demonstrate how relational notions can solve some persistent IS-related problems in Russian and other languages. A major problem associated with topics is an extreme diversity of formal means used to encode them. Namely, there is a syntactic operation of topicalization, but subjects and pronouns are exempt from it, as Russian (4) and (5) show. Their translations illustrate that analogous examples exist in English. (4) a. Knigu Ivan pro el. book.ACC Ivan.NOM read `The book, Ivan read.'


(4) b. Ivan pro el knigu. Ivan.NOM read book.ACC `Ivan read the book.' (5) Q: to slu ilos' s Petrom? What happened to Petr?
RIL

(5) A1: Ivan ego UDA Ivan.NOM he.ACC hit `Ivan HIT him.'

. (5) A2: Ivan UDA Ivan.NOM hit `Ivan HIT him.'

RIL

ego. he.ACC

After we introduced relative positions with respect to other elements, it is unproblematic that object topics need to move (over the subjects), while subject topics can remain in the [Spec; TP] (unless they also need to move over something., e.g. a high adverb). Pronouns do not need to topicalize because they get on top of the accessibility hierarchy by virtue of their meaning, as it is stated in the lexicon. However, since their place on the salience hierarchy is not fixed, pronouns move out of the most embedded position or loose the main stress as a result of stress shift, as in (5) -- unless they are the most salient information in the sentence, as in (6). (6) Ivan always wondered why Maria chose
HIM

(rather than Petr or Pavel).

If we take foci, a major problem is the impossibility to pinpoint a single constituent that is the focus of the sentence. Sentences with several `nested' foci, as in (7)-(8), are discussed in the literature. (7) Q: What happened? (6) A: When I came home, rather than doing his homework, [Johnny was [reading [SUPERMAN] to some kid]] (Neeleman and Szendr i 2004). (8) [An [A
MERICAN

] farmer was talking to a [CANADIAN] farmer] (Rooth 1992).

Nested foci, which were problematic for most definitions (something can either be in focus or not), can receive a natural explanation because the necessity of a yes/no label is removed: we can talk about accessibility and salience scales. References Chomsky, N. (2008). On phases. In R. Freidin, C. P. Otero, & M.-L. Zubizarreta (Eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory (pp. 133-166). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Junghanns, U., & Zybatow, G. (1995). Syntax and Information Structure of Russian clauses. In W. Browne (Ed.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 4 (pp. 289-319). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Neeleman, A., & Szendr i, K. (2004). Superman Sentences. Linguistic Inquiry, 35, 149-159. Reinhart, T. (1995) Interface strategies. OTS Working Papers in Linguistics. Research Institute for Language and Speech, Utrecht University. Reinhart, T. (2006). Interface strategies: Reference-set computation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements of grammar: Handbook in generative syntax (pp. 281-337). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Rooth, M. E. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 75116.


Sirotinina, O. B. (1965/2003). Porjadok slov v russkom jazyke (`Word order in Russian'). 2 ed. Moscow: Editorial URSS.

nd