I do not find the dichotomistic split between topic and comment helpful. It is too much black and white, as if language always presents a choice between only two possiblilities.
Iver Larsen wrote:Since Stephen mentioned me based on a long previous discussion, let me clarify my position which does not follow the tradition.
I do not think the placement of a personal pronoun depends on the prosody or phonology in dependence on a precediing constituent, except in poetry which has special rules. In my view the data can be better explained by an alternative analysis. I would say that the placement of a personal pronoun like other constituents is governed by semantics and pragmatics, when there is a syntactic choice. Once that position has been decided, phonologial accent follows as a consequence of the pragmatic choice.
Iver Larsen wrote:Stephen mentioned Matthew 26:51 ἀφεῖλεν αὐτοῦ τὸ ὠτίον Mark 14:47 has the same order, but Luke 22:50 has ἀφεῖλεν τὸ οὖς αὐτοῦ τὸ δεξίον.
The verb ἀφαιρέω is a [tri]valent verb which can take two constituents: "Take away P from X", where P is the object being removed and X is the person who loses that object. P would be in the accusative and X in the (partitive) genitive, e.g. Luke 10:42 ἥτις οὐκ ἀφαιρεθήσεται αὐτῆς. (which shall not be taken from her.) Therefore, we can analyze the αὐτοῦ in Matt 26:51 and Mark 14:47 as the X participant in the verbal clause: "he took away from him."
Stephen Carlson wrote:The reason I'm skeptical is that I don't think these two factors are enough to explain the word order, and in many languages unstressed elements like pronouns often follow different patterns of placement. In other words, to claim that unstressed pronouns shift forward for phonological reasons is by no means a strange claim. It happens in languages other than Greek, including mainland Scandinavian languages with the so-called "Scandinavian object shift," where a unstressed object pronoun is moved ahead of the sentential adverb. Compare (in Swedish): Jag kysste inte Marit ("I didn't kiss Marit") with Jag kysste henne inte ("I didn't kiss her"). Researchers have linked this object shift (and its optionality in Swedish) to phonological reasons.
Iver Larsen wrote:Stephen Carlson wrote:The reason I'm skeptical is that I don't think these two factors are enough to explain the word order, and in many languages unstressed elements like pronouns often follow different patterns of placement. In other words, to claim that unstressed pronouns shift forward for phonological reasons is by no means a strange claim. It happens in languages other than Greek, including mainland Scandinavian languages with the so-called "Scandinavian object shift," where a unstressed object pronoun is moved ahead of the sentential adverb. Compare (in Swedish): Jag kysste inte Marit ("I didn't kiss Marit") with Jag kysste henne inte ("I didn't kiss her"). Researchers have linked this object shift (and its optionality in Swedish) to phonological reasons.
Thank you for quoting an example that I can relate to. I am curious about this so-called Scandinavian object shift. Do you have a reference for this analysis? I am sceptical because we have the same in Danish: "Jeg kyssede ikke Marit" (I kissed not Marit) and "Jeg kyssede hende ikke" (I kissed her not). But that is not an object shift, at least not in Danish, nor is the placement of the unstressed pronoun optional.
Abstract wrote:The thesis discusses Object Shift, weak pronoun shift in the Scandinavian languages, from the intonational perspective, by presenting experimental data from all the Scandinavian languages. It is shown that downstep typically occurs in the Object Shift construction but does not occur in the constructions where Object Shift cannot occur. A new hypothesis on Scandinavian Object Shift is presented: the object pronoun moves to cause downstep. Holmberg’s Generalization is accounted for as follows: When main verb movement takes place, the object pronoun moves and causes downstep to eliminate a focal effect on the sentential element(s) after the main verb. In the environments in which downstep must not occur, i.e. in the constructions where the final pitch peak occurs on the (in-situ) main verb, Object Shift does not occur either. A new generalization on Object Shift is also presented: the earlier the pitch gesture occurs, the more likely is Object Shift to occur; the more delayed the pitch gesture is, the more likely is Object Shift to be absent. Object Shift is thus not a dichotomous property, i.e. either present or absent, but a gradient phenomenon in the Scandinavian languages.
Iver Larsen wrote:It is correct, though, that a pronoun which functions as an object or indirect object for a verb will be positioned immediately after the verb. An indirect object will come before a direct object. If there is also an adverb in the sentence, including the negative marker, it is a more peripheral element and will be placed after the pronoun. However, if the object is a noun phrase instead of a pronoun, an adverb will be placed before the object. So, the placement of the adverb depends on what the object is, but it is not an object shift. It is possible to move the pronoun object in front of the verb in order to emphazise it: Hende kyssede jeg ikke (Henne kysste jag inte), (Her I did not kiss).
Iver Larsen wrote:I agree that a pronominal object for a verb is often placed close to the verb(root) across languages whether that object is an affix or a separate word. So, I agree that pronouns behave differently than noun phrases which are not pronouns. But it is not caused by phonological reasons, at least not in Danish, and I am sceptical about such a claim for Greek.
Iver Larsen wrote:If we talk about possessive pronouns, it is a different matter altogether, since possessive pronouns are constituents in a noun phrase. In Danish a possessive pronoun always comes before the head noun with optional adjectives in between (like English). Greek is ambiguous in this respect because the genitive of the personal pronoun is also used as a possessive pronoun. So, in a given sentence like the one in Matt 26:51 - ἀφεῖλεν αὐτοῦ τὸ ὠτίον - the question is whether the pronoun is a personal pronoun functioning as an argument in the verbal frame or a fronted possessive pronoun functioning as a constituent in the noun phrase. I suggest the former as you know.
D Ryan Lowe wrote:I just discovered today that Levinsohn (2000: 35, 37) analyzes this verse, and also describes τὴν πίστιν as brought into focus, although he doesn't put them in bold like he does for pre-verbal focal constituents. Maybe he also draws a distinction, like you do? Interestingly, Levinsohn analyzes σοι as a focal constituent as well, and not as a point of departure (frame of reference). In any case, I'm still processing, formulating, and refining my views on the "rules."
Levinsohn, p. 37 wrote:As for v. 18e [= κἀγώ σοι δείξω ἐκ τῶν ἔργων μου / τὴν πίστιν], it contains two focal constituents: τὴν πίστιν (see sec. 3.5) and the pronominal constituent σοι, which is in contrast with μοι.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests