Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-29T06:19:29.064Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Syntactic weight vs information structure and word order variation in Polish*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Anna Siewierska
Anna Siewierska
Affiliation:
Department of General Linguistics, University of Amsterdam, Spui 21, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article presents an analysis of Polish transitive clause order from the perspective of two competing word order principles, namely the form-driven principle of syntactic weight proposed by Hawkins and the pragmatically based Topic > Comment principle.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , September 1993 , pp. 233 - 265
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bock, J. K. (1982). Towards a cognitive psychology of syntax: information processing contributions to sentence formulation. Psychological Review. 89 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolkestein, A. M. (1985). Discourse and case marking, three place predicates in Latin. In Touratier, C. (ed.) Syntaxe el Latin, Aix-en-Provence: Université de Province, Lafitte. 191–225.Google Scholar
Bolkestein, A. M. & Risselada, R. (1987). The pragmatic motivation for syntactic and semantic perspective. In Verschueren, J. & Bertuccelli-Papi, M. (eds.) The pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 497–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daneš, F. (1974). Functional sentence perspective and the organization of the text. In Daneš, F. (ed.), Papers on functional sentence perspective. The Hague: Mouton. 106–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dik, S. C. (1978). Functional grammar. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dik, S. C. (1989). The theory of functional grammar. Part one: The clause. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Dryer, M. S. (1980). The positional tendencies of sentential NPs in universal grammar. Canadian Journal of Linguistics. 25 123–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, M. S. (1992). The Greenbergian word order correlations. Lg. 68 81–138.Google Scholar
Duszak, A. (1987). The dynamics of topics in English and Polish. Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.Google Scholar
Firbas, J. (1964). From comparative word order studies. Brno Studies in English. 4 111–126.Google Scholar
Firbas, J. (1981). Scene and perspective. Brno Studies in English. 4 37–79.Google Scholar
Gil, D. (1986). A prosodic typology of language. Folia Linguistica. 20 165–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (ed.), (1983a). Topic continuity in Discourse: quantitative cross-language studies. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1983b). Topic continuity in discourse: an introduction. In Givón, T. (ed.). 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1988). The pragmatics of word order: predictability, importance and attention. In Hammond, M. et al. (eds.). 243–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grzegorek, M. (1984). Thematization in English and Polish: a study in word order. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Adama Mickiewicza.Google Scholar
Gundel, J. K. (1988). Universals of topic-comment structure. In Hammond, M. et al. (eds.). 209–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gustafsson, M. (1974). The phonetic length of the members in present-day English binomials. Neuphologische Mitteilungen 75, 663–677.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. (1980). The iconicity of grammar: isomorphism and motivation. Lg. 56 515–540.Google Scholar
Hammond, M., Moravcsik, E. A. & Wirth, J. R. (eds.) (1988). Studies in syntactic typology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (1990). A parsing theory of word order universals. LIn 21, 223–261.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (1991a). Syntactic weight versus information structure in word order variation. Linguistische Berichte. Special issue on Information Structure and Grammar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (1991b). On the interaction between performance principles of word order. In Hawkins, J. A. & Siewierska, A. (eds.) ESF EUROTYP working papers II.2. 141–189.Google Scholar
Huszcza, R. (1980). Tematyczno-rematyczna struktura zdania w języku polskim. Polonica. 6 57–71.Google Scholar
Huszcza, R. (1990). Tematyczno-rematyczna struktura zdania w językach różnych typów. In Dobrzyńska, T. (ed.) Tekst w kontekscie. Wroclaw: Ossolineum.Google Scholar
Jodlowski, S. (1977). Podstawy skladni polskiej. Warsaw: PWN.Google Scholar
Krucka, B. (1982). Problem szyku wyrazów w języku polskim. Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego 39. 109–124.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1974). The position of relative clauses and conjunctions. LIn 5, 117–136.Google Scholar
Primus, B. (1991). A performance based account of topic positions and focus positions. In Hawkins, J. A. & Siewierska, A. (eds.) ESF EUROTYP working papers 11.2. 1–33.Google Scholar
Prince, E. F. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given/new information. In Cole, P. (ed.) Radical pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. 223–256.Google Scholar
Siewierska, A. (1992). Pragmatic functions and the pragmatics of word order in FG; the case of Polish. Paper presented at the 14th World Congress of Linguists, Quebec, 12 August 1992.Google Scholar
Topolińska, Z. (ed.) (1984). Gramatyka wspólczesnego języka polskiego: Skladnia. Warsaw: PWN.Google Scholar