Journal of Pragm~tics 2 (1978) 225-245 © North-Holland Publishing Company

OPTIONS AND CONSTRAINTS IN THE SURFACE ORDERING OF NOUN PHRASES IN ENGLISH AND GERMAN

HENRY W. KIRKWOOD

Sentences have a particular 'communicative sense' in that they are used to express different kinds of statements. A distinction may be drawn between sentence types expressing locational, existential-locative, and source-emergence statements. Each type is associated with a charac- teristic information structure, which is manifest in a particui__ar intonation patterning and sequential ordering of dements. The ordering of sentence elements in English and German is subject to different sets of criteria, and one set of criteria is seen to have more relevance in the one language than it ttas in the otl:er. An attempt is made to establish a basic, 'systemic' order- ing of participants in the two lar~guages in terms of the ease fur~ctions expressed by noun phrases in different semantic sentehce patterns. Due consideration is given to the different op- tions available, and to the different constraints that apply, in the surface ordering of elements in the two la~,guages under investigation.

Jackendoff sets out to explain exceptions to the passive in English on the basis of "thematic relations expressed in a verb's lexical entry" (1'~72: 45). His notion of ' theme' is derived essentially from the work of Grube~ ~i965) and is Io be under- stood as a particular semantic function exp~'essed by a noun phrase in a sentence. Thh notion of theme would seem to be akin to the notion of case category in Fill- more's case system (of. Fillmore 1968), but it differs from the latter in a significant

respect: in Fillmore's case grammar each surface structure NP is assum~d to realize exactly one deep structure case; in Jackendoff 's system a noun phrase can function in more than one thematic role within the same sentence (cf. the conjunction of cases in Anderson 197]i: 129f.). With verbs of tocation the theme is defined by Jackendoff as " the NP whose location is beint asserted". For example, in:

(1) The rock stood in the corner

the NP the rock is theme. In locatiomd sentences ' theme' would thus appear to cor- respond to tire "notionally most neutral case", termed nominative in Anderson 197'i" 37 and objective in Fillmore 1968. I shall henceforth use the term nomina-

tive ,~nom) for thi:~ case category. Jackendoff suggests that certain "apparently unrelated exceptions to the passive

225

226 H, W. Kirkwo~, :! / Surface ordering of noun phrases

cat,, be united under the generalization expressed by the Thematic Hierarchy Condi- tio~.i" (i 972: 43f.) and sets up tile following hierarchy of thematic relations:

( 1 ) Agent (2) Location, Source, Goal (3) Theme

The Thematic Hierarchy Condition states with regard to the application of the pas, sire transformation tha~ "The passive by phrase must be higher on the Thematic Hierarchy than the derived subject"° Gee (1974) adduces passives that appear to vmlate the Thematic tiwrarchy Condition. Among the examples he gives are:

(2) The circle surrounds the dot {3)./ohn follows Mary in the line (41 John precedes Mary in the line

in which the italicized noun phrases have in Gruber's analysis (1965), the function of theme, i.e. they refer to en,tities whose location is being asserted. Accordingly the TllC would predict ttmt the passives 15-7) are unacceptable:

{5) ~ltle dot is surrounded by the circle (6) Mary is followed by J:~hn in tile line {7) Mary is preceded by John in the line

Yet :.he} are obviously not. I shall return to this kind of sentence presently and shrew that a different noti{m of theme and thematic structure may help explain such phenomena and also throw light on certain "myste,ious constraints" ,an the sue'ace arrangemer~t of NPs pointed out ty Fillmore (1970){,and discussed in Sgall 197 "~.., 1975", Sgall, Hajieov~i and Benegovg ~ 9:!3", and Kirkwood 1973).

The definition of the theme as the NF' the location of whose referent is being asserted underlines the obvious, but importa1~t fact that sentences have a particular "com~nunicative sense' in that they are used to express; different kinds of s:ate- meots . A distinction may be drawn between sentence types expressing locational statements and types expressing exislential-I~cative staten~=-nts. In a locational ~,entem'e such as

(8) The b~,ok is on tile table

the speake; refi'rs to a particular entity, identifying knowledge of which on the part ~f the hearer is presumed, and asserts its Ioc;ttion. On the other hand, in sen~tences

(9i There is a book on the table

1t. Iv. girkm,:,trd / Surface ordering of noun phrases 227

(10) The table has a book on it (11) L¢ing on the table is a book

the sp.~aker a~serts the existence in a certain place of a particular entity, which has not been referred to previously~ Existential or existential.locative sentences such as (9-11 ) are thus a direct means of ir~troducing referents into the discourse, whereas locatic, nal sentences predicate of (e.g. ascribe properties to) already identified entitie:g. The different statemem types are realized by specific sentence types in dit z ferent languages and exhibit charac~!eristic patterns in iTaformation structure, in intonal:ion, and in the sequential ordering of elements.

In describ~,ng the information structure of existential-locative and location',d sent,~nces I shall draw on the theory of "functional sentence perspective" developed by Czech linguists (notably Firbas 1966a, 1966b).

In lhis theory, the term "theme"' (or thematic) is used to denote elements that convey information that is presumed by the speaker to be 'given', i.e. textually or situationally derivable or identifiable from the stock of knowledge of particular entities;, events, etc. shared by speaker and hearer; the term "rheme" (or thematic) is user:it to denote elements that convey 'new' intbrmation, i.e. non-recoverable information; "new' is to be understood in a relative sense; element.,; carry what Firbas (1966a, 1966b) has called different degrees of "communicative dynamism", by which is meant the degree to which they "push the communication forward" ObvioL~Lsly the distinction, definite/indefinite in NPs is relevant to the distinction given/l~ew, but other factors are also relevant. Consider from this point of view the

O~ sentences (1..; and (13).

(12) (i looked across the room.) On the 1able lay the book (13) This letter arrived this morning

in which the words italicized indiate tile, point of tonic prominence and of infi)r- marion focus. In (12) 'the table' is situationally present and conveys predictable information; it is an entity, conceived as a location, in relation to which the exis- tence of 'the book', which is recalled from a more 'remote' context, is being asserted. In (13) this letter has exophoric (situational) reference, but the com- munic~tive set~se of the sentence is to bring to the attention of the hearer its exis- tence or presence in a given place. In languages with a relatively free word order there i's a tendency for the surface order of elements, in the neutral, unmarked case, to manifest what Firbas (196fia, 1966b) has called "file basic distribution of com- municative dynamism", that is, for thematic elements to precede rhematic ele- ments. However, the surface order is the outcome of an interplay of different crite- ria, anti, in other ilanguages, e.g. in modern English,, ~ra:mmatical and syntactic con- straint~; may o.,erride the t~.i~dency to effect a theme-rheme sequence of elements. Hence, what is considered neutral or unmarked, as opposed to non.neutral or marked, will depend on the relative importance in the given language system of the

228 H. ~¢. Kirku~od / Surface ordering of noun phrases

different criteria that operate on the surface order of elements. With regard to the distinction between marked and unr~aarked forms, Ha]lliday

(1967: 219) writes: "marked is not to be equated with rare; it simply contrasts with unmarked, an unmarked option being one which is in some respect less motivated than others in the ,~me system and is there, fore selected unless there is specification to the contrary". In English the stabilization of the grammatical order of elements SV(O) meant that a departure from this order requires special motiva- tion. Initial position of the direct object, yielding an OSV sequence, as in

(14) / /The rdm//l 've seen / / l

is marked for emphasis or contrast, and the markedness of this order is further indicated by assigning the initial e!~ment the status of a separate information unit and making it a separate tone group. In German, the surface order of elements is relatively free, and an object phrase may be fronted as a sequentially unmarked op- tlon if i~ . . . . . . . . . ;...c . . . . . . . ; .. ,~._, : . . . . . . . . . ,,.. _- . . . . . . . . . ,, . . . . . . . . . . ,-,- it V'ozlv~;y~ IliiUIilI~"It~Oil tll~lt lb t ~ A t U d l l y o r ~ltUi:ltllUll~llly [e~l,.lvl~ri:iOle, a s ilfi

(15)/ /Den Film habe ich gesehen//

The ordering of elements in German is to a greater extent than in English deter- mined by the "basic distribution of :ommunicative dynamism", and fronting of a non-thematic element, as in

(16) Eine Uhr fand man auf dem Bod,:n (17) Eine Uhr wurde auf dem Boden gefunden

is marked for emphasis or contrast, since the unmarked option, that of fronting a

thematic element, e.g. the locative eleme~at, is readily available. In English, the sequence

(18) A watch was found on the floor

is unmarked, being in conformi;y with the grammatical principle, this being the dominant principle in English.

A furl~Jaer criterion relevant to the order of elements in both. English and German is the relative syntactic 'closeness' of elements to the verb. This may be seen and represented in terms of logical operator-operand relationships, where the operator

1 The notation used ~ adopted from HaUiday 1970. The tone group boundary is iindica'ted by a double sla~h//. The "onic syllable is indicated by italics. Primary tones are, where given, indi- cated by a number al the beginning of the tone group. Among the tones referred to in Halliday 1970 are tone 1 (faI~.ing), tone 3 0ow rising), tone 4 (falling rising) and tone 13, a filsion of tone-s 1 ai~:d 3 in a compound tone group. For further discussion of the tones and their r~;levance to information structure see Kirkwood 1977.

It. I4: Kiri'¢wood / Surface ordering of noun phrases 229

spec~ifies the operand s~;mantically 2 (cf. Bartsch and Venne~r.ann 1972). Hence in

(19) leh sah, wie er einem Kollegen ein Manuskript tiberreichte

the direct object operates directly on the verb, yielding a syntactic complex (NP(V)). The indirect: object, in turn, operates on this complex, specifying it furtt~er; there is no diie~;t relationship between indirect object and verb, hence no synt~Etctic complex *einem Kollegen iiberreicher,~ The resulting hi,~rarchy o f rela- tion.,~hips in terms of relative closeness may be represented as (NP(NP(V))). In sen~ tence (19), which has the verb in end position, the logical relationships are serial- ized naturally, i.e. tlae surface order is a direct reflection of the underlying hier- arch:teal order. In sentence (20) with the non-finite part of the verb in end position

(20) Er hat einem Kollegen a~, Mamlskript tiberreicht

the t~iationships are also seriairzed naturally, whereas in

(21) Er iJberreichte einem Kollegen ein Manuskript

the ~;urface order is not a direct reflection of the underlying hierarchical order; the surf~Lce order in (21) ma~tifests the well-known 'bracket' or ~brace' construction. The relative positions of direct and indirect objects may be affected by contextual crite "ia: in sentence (22).

(22) Er hat das Manuskrip~ einem Kollegen i~berreicht

tile tefinite, thematic NP has been moved to the l~fl Sentence (22) may be regarded as a contextual variant of the basic situatiton seen in (20).

E aglish has been said to display 'Kontaktstellung' and German 'Di~tanzstellung' of sentence elemeats (cf. Admoni 1962), the latter referring to the dissociation in surf, tce structure of elements that 'belong together'. But, of course, if in German the ,~'erb is in end position, German also exhibits Kontaktstellung, the serialization of elements beir'tg from right to left (where left specifies right - a characteristic fea- ture of SOV-type languages), as opposed to a left-to-right serialization (a charac- teristic feature of SVO-type lan~;uages).

A further aspe,~t of the stabilization of the surface order of elements in English is that English, to a far greater extent than German, has resorted to the subjectiviza-

20st;n Dahl has pc,inted out ~o me that Vennemann's concept of the operator-oper~nd rela- tionsl~ip is rather idiosyncratic:, in that he regards the object as operator and the verb as operaad, contrary to the usual treati~aent (in ,,~ymbolie logic and linguistic theories building on it). T iae principle of 'natural se, rializ iron' can however be upheld even if one ke,~ps fl.e tradi- tiona]I way of looking at the relationsl,ip.

230 H. I¢. KirRwood / Surfc, ce ordering of noun phrases

tion of case categories such as locative, source, instrumental, etc. This process allows, for instance, a thematic locative element to be fronted as subiect. Thiis is a highly productive process in modern English (of. sentences of the type The roaxt was rustling with leaves in Rohdenburg 1974). It is interesting to note that Paul records examples of locative subjects from earlier German (1958: 32), instances of what he calls "Subjektvertauschung", (e.g. Der Markt wimmelt yon Menschen/Auf dem Markt wimmelt es yon Menschen), a process that is extremely rare in modern German, the reason being that therre is far less motivation for the process in German than there is in English. The fronling of elements other than the subject in English, e.g. lexical adjuncts or complements, represents a marked option, and the marked- ness is expressed phonologically, i.e. in terms of tonaliW (Halliday 1967: 214). Time and place adjuncts may be freely preposed. In the case of prepositional phrases as complements of the verb, a distinct:ion may be made between those that are syntactically dispensable and those that are syntactically not dispensable (Kirk- wood 1960). A sentence such as

(23) From this tradition it has freed itself

is more acceptable than

(24) On your support I ~ as r~lying

since in (23) the 'syntactic nucleus' It has freed itself is a grammatically well- formed sentence, whereas the sequence I was relying is not. Compare the German equivalents of (23) and (24):

(25) Von dieser Tradition hat es sich befreit (26) Mit deiner UnterstiJtzung habe ich gerechnet

which are unmarked both ff~ terms of the surface order of elements and in in:for- mation focus.

Existential or existential-locative sentences are thus a direct means of intro- ducing a discourse referent and of enlarging the stock of knowledge of particultars shared by speaker and hearer. Predicative sentences, which include location~d sen- tences, have a bipartite topic-comment structure: the speaker refers to a particular entity, which the hearer is presumed ab!e to identify, and goes on to assert some- thing about it. The particula~ function of the existential verb, that of establ:ishing existence, typically in relation to a given place, is reflected in the surface order of elements found in many languages, i.e. verb.-subject. The characteristic ordering of elements in existential s.entences in German has been discussed by Kirkwood (I 969) in Czech by Firbas (1966a), in Russian and Chinese by Lyons (1967), and in Japanese by Kuno (1971). In Kirkwoo~ 1969 I suggested that the unmarked order

1f. W. Kirkwood / Surface ordering of noun phrases 231

of eements in existential sentences in German is

Locative + Verb { exis~tence

emergence

+ indef NP

The surface order of elements in English is subject to constraints of a grammatical nature, the sequence SV(O) having become established as the grammatical norm. It is p.~ssible to move a non-thematic subject away from initial positiion by the intro- duce:ion of the expletive there, but there-insertion is of limited applicability. As noted earlier 'secondary subject~ization' of the locative or 'source' element may achiieve a theme-rhe~:ae perspe~:tive while preserving the grammaticalized order SV(O). Senience~ (27--28) may serve to illustrate this process:

(27 ~ A lively discussion arose over this question (28) This question aroused a lively discussion

In German overt expression as given to the locative or 'source' element by means of a prepositio~al phrase, which may be fronted, as in

(29 ~ An dieser Frage entziindete sich eine lebhafte Diskussion

Col sider now the !~bllowing set of sentences:

(30} There are s,ame~ books in the box (31 ) The box conta:ins some books (32} The box ha~s some books in it (33) Some books are contained in the box (34} Contained in the box are some books

All of which e×press existential-locative statements Sentence (30) represents the bas ic type of existential-locative sentence in English; the expletive or 'dummy sub- jec~i' there serw.~s to move the indefinite NP, which refers to the entities whose exis- ten:e is bei~lg asserted and whizh expresses 1the notionally most neutral case nolainative (or in Fillmorean terms 'objective') away from initial position to a posi- tion followirg the verb; it also anticipates the: locative phrase, which in other lanl~uages, e4;. German, is normally fronted. In sentence (31), the use of the verb cov.~tain allows sub]ectivization and fronting of the locative, yielding a surtace order loc (theme)-nom (rheme). Senteuce (32) represents a further option available in Eni!;Us}, to a far greater extent than in German, namely the subjectivization and fronting of ~ thev,atic locative by the introduction of have. Sentence (33) is ma~:ked in tw,) respects (i) for veice, i.e. passive vs. active, and (ii) in information focas, the rh~.~mat-ic nominative: preceding the thematic locative. Since in both

232 H. ~. Kirlcw~xt / Surl,'ace ordering o f noun phrases

respects an unmarked opt~op :g available (as realized in (31)), this particular surface feral required special motivation, e.g. special emphasis or contrast. Sentence (34) may be regarded as being marked stylistically, but it does achieve a theme-theme sequence; it is therefore intbrmationally unmarked. The verb include which, also takes a locative subject, behaves in a similar way. The semantic structure of active clauses with contain and include 3 may be represented as follows:

grammatical structure:

semantic structure:

subject verb object

loc verb nom

Contrasting with contain and include, which take locative subjects i~a active clauses, are the verbs surround, dominate, follow and precede: if I say 'A circle sur- rounds the dot' I assert the existence of the referent of the subject-NP in relation to that of the object-NP, whereas if I say 'The circle contains a dot' I assert the exis- tence of the referent of the object-NP in relation to that of the subject-NP. The semantic structure of active clauses with surround, dominate, follow and precede may be represented as follows:

grammatical structure: subject verb object

semantic structure: nom verb loc

Consider the sentences:

(35) There is a circle around the dot (36) Around the dot ('acre) is a circle (37) A circle surrounds the dot (38) The dot is surrounded by a circle (39) Surrounding the dot is a circle

all of which express existential-locative statements. Sentences (36), (38) and (39) contrast with sentence (37) in that in (36), (38) and (39) the, sequence of elements is Ioc (theme)-nom (rheme), whereas (37) is in keeping with the grammaticalized or6er SVO, which in modern English is the dominant principle and may override oilier criteria that operat~ on word order, e.g. the tendenc/ to effect a theme- rheaae sequence. Hence, whereas in English the sentences

(40) A car stood by the door (41) A woman appeared at the window

3 N0t,~: too, that lack (in Middle English a dative verb) takes a sqbjectivized locative (eL Ander- son 1971: 115). In Middle EngLish, and in Modern German, the non-nominative case is expre:~u:1 in the form of a dative "an offshoot of the Ioc used with personal pronouns" (of. Kurylowicz I964: 190--,195, quoted in Anderson 1971 : 103). 8enc¢ in the English He is lack- ing in courage and in German Es fehlt ihm an Mut the prepo~ition~ phrases with in and an express the nominative, the in and an having no more than the meaning of 'in respect of'.

H.W. Kirkwood / Surface ordering o f noun p~:ases 233

are m~tmarked, being in conformity with the grammatical F~ knciple, in German, the 4 seque~lces

(42) Ely Auto stand ~'or der Tiir (43) Eine Frau e~chim am Ferister

are n~:m.neutral or marked options in terms of information focus, the unmarked options being

(44) Vor der Tiir stand ein Auto (45) Am Ferster erschien eine Frau

In sel-:ten,:e (38) the use of the passive represents a further unmarked elation in Engli~;h: the definite (thematic) locative is made subject of a passive sentence and a sequence loc (theme)--nora (theme) is achieved. The verbs dominate, follow and precede show the same pattern as surround. Cf.

(46) (47) (48)

A discussion followed the lecture The lecture wa~, :followed by a discussion t'ollowing the !¢cture (there) was a discussion

(49) (50) (51)

An old castle dominates the town The town is dominated by an old castle Dominating tlae town is an ~ld castle

Th,~ differences in the semantic and thematic structures of senten.ces with con- tain a ad include on the one hand, and sentences with surround, s dominate, )~l~,ow

4 This kind of analysis would have some relevance in determining high probability equivalents in a theory of translation. Thus a sentence Two main iss~tes dominated today's debate would be reeogn tsed as being essentially existentialqocative with the structure nom (rheme)-loc (theme). In a Ge, rman equivalent we would expect the sequence lee ( theme)-nom (rheme) and overt expres:~ion to be given to the thematic locative by means of a prepositional phrase, e.g. a seo- tenee such as lm h/~i~ttelpunkt der heutigen Debatte standen zwei Hauptjfragen. 5 Folh:,wing the completion of this article, Jackendoff',; 1976 article appeared. In this article Jacken ~loff suggests that surround has "the opposite thematic relations" to contain, which is in agreement with what I am proposing ilere, i.e. its subject in active clauses is Theme (i.e. nomi- native) and its objec~ locative. In suppGrt of this view he contrasts the relative felicity or infelic- ity of sentences CO-d) as answers to (a), (*indicating Jackendoff's judgement of the r~mtive felicity ):

(a) Where is the dot? Co) It is contained in the circle (c) ?*7:~e circle contains it (d) ?*It is su,rrounded by the circle (e) *The circle surrounds it

234 H. W. Kirkwood / Surface ordering o.f noun phrases

and precede, on the other, are further illustrated by the following options and con- stra, iats that apply-

(52) Surrounding the dot is a circle (53) *Containin[; the dot is a circle

Sentence (53) simulates an existential-locative sentence, i.e. we appear to be asse~ting the exk,,te~Lce of a location in respect of the entity located in respect of it. On the other h~md, whereas we may have

(54) Contained irt the circle is a dot

the ~equence

(55) ?Surrotmded by the circle is a dot

sounds unusual. Cgmpare furthel

(56) There is a dot contained in lhe circle (57) *There is a dot surrounded ay the circle

(58) (59) (60) (61) (62) (63)

A circle surroartds the dot A discussion ti:~]low,~d the lecture ?A circle contains the dot Contained in ~he circle is a Jot *Surrounded by the circle is a dot *Followed by the discussiori is a lecture

Further, a sentence .,;uch as

(64) The circle contains a dot

allows passivization, i.e.

(65) A dot is contained in the circle

The following commenl~ are called r~r: The appropriate answer to (a) will be a locational sen- tence in which the loca~tive, correspoading to the wh-element of the question, is the point of primary information f¢,cu~s. Hence, (b) is an appropriate answer: it is a locational sentenc<~ with the neumd ~quence n~mfftheme-loc/rheme. In (c) the rhematic locative expression is ~onted, and since there is an unmarked option readily available, represented by (b), the answer (c) is loss motivated. (dr has r.he form of an existential-locative sentence, the nominative NP expres- sion carrying info~ati~:m focus; it i~ hence quite inappropriate as an answer to (a). Finally, (e), like (d), is es~ntially existential-locative in which the subject is nominative and theme, of. examples (89) arm (90) iin this article.

H. I¢. Kirk vood / Surface ordering of noun p;. ,'ases 235

whereas the se!atences (66) altd (67)

(66) The circle surrounds a dot (67) Th~ discussion follows a lecture

do not. Hence the: sequences

(68) *A dot is surrounded by the circle (69) *A lecture is followed by the discussion

are not well-farmed sentences. F~qmore (1970) has remarked that "the occurrence of quantifying expressions

of various types seems to be constrained in fairly mysteriou~ ways according to the surface arrangements of the NPs in a sentence". He presents the following two qua- druples of ser, tences and non-sentences as exa~r~ pies of the unknown constraints:

(70) (71) (72) (73)

Every Sunday follows a Saturday Every Saturday is followed by a Sunday A Sunday follows every Saturday (a paraphrase,' of (71)) *A Saturday is followed by every Sunday (not a paraphrase of (70))

(74) (7s) (76) (77)

Every Saturday precedes a Sunday Every Sunday is preceded by a Saturday A Saturday precedes every Sunday (a paraphrase of (75)) *A Sunday is preceded by every Saturday (not a paraphrase of (74))

The constraints on the surface arrangement of the NPs in sentences (73)and (77) relate to the relations holding between the seman~ ~:,i thematic structures of sentences with the verbs fol low and precede (and, as m~ed above, of sentences with surround and dominate). The constraints also apply if we substitute for every the definite determiner the, and I shall assume that ever),, like the is a def'mite deter- miner. The definiteness of ever),, which refers to each member indi~ridually or to all members collectively of a given set, is suggested by the fact that, like the, it does not normally occur in existential sentences with the expletive there E.g.

(78) Every student was standing in front of the university (79) *There was every student standing in front of the university

On the other hand, the quantifiers some and many' may be given two interpreta- tions semantically. Compare:

(80)//1 Many (some) students were standing in front of the unive~rsity// (81)//I There were many students standing in front of the university// (82) / / t Many(some) students were standing in front of the university//

236 1t. W. Kirkwood / Surface ordering of noun phrases

many (some) students in (80) refers to a particular subset of a given set of individ- uals; many here i,; what Dahl (1973, 1974) calls a classical quantifier involving a definite domain 05 quantification. In (81) and (82) many is a non-classical quanti- fier and does not bwolve a definite domahl of quantification; it merely indicates the presence in a certain place of a large number of individuals of a certain kind. Sen- tence (80) is thus a locational sentence with the semantic and thematic structure

nom loc

theme,, theme

whereas sentence~ (81) and (82) are existential-locative with the structure

loc nom

theme rheme

l.. Ge~nan, ,t.:..~:c," . . . . . . . I . t tlll~ U,tCtgU~.e in structare correlates with a difference in the surface order. Thus (80) corresponds to

(83) Viele Studenten standen vor der UniversiMt

and (81 ) and (82) to

(84) Vet der Universit/it standen viele Sttudenten

Fillmore's sentence (71 )

(171) Every Saturday is follow,.~d by a Sunday

may be compared with

(85) The lectnre was followed by a discussion

The unacceptable sequence in FiUmore's example (73)

t,73) *A Saturday is followed by every Sunday

compares with the equally unacceptable sequences

(86) *A lecture was followed by the discussion (87) *A dot is surrounded by the circJe (88) *A town is dormnated by the old castle

The motivation for the use of the passive in (71) and (75) is the fronting of a

H. W. Kirkwood / ',~urface ordering of noun phrases 237

definite thematic 1,~cative which achieves a sequence loc (theme)-nom (rheme). In (73) and (77) ther~ is no s~ach mot:ivar:ion ibt the use of the oassive. Fronting of an indefinite rhematic locative in what is essentially a locatio~al sentence is, at least, unusual. Cf.

(89) ?A box has the books in i.t (90) ?A box contains the books

since the usual sequence for locaticnal sentences in nom (theme)-loc (theme)and this sequeaee can be achieved with,~ut resort to a %econdary form'. Fronting of an indefinite nominative subject-NP in an active sentence expressing an existential- locative ~tatement, as in

(72) A Sunoay follows every Saturday (Fillmore's exal,aple) (91) A circle surrounds the dot (92) An old castle dominates the town

represents aa order of elements that is in English &n'ammatically unmarked (el. A car stood by the door, A woman appeared at the window). As noted earlier, in German, the grammatical principle plays a secondary' role in the surface ordering of elements, ar, d a the~ne-rheme sequence may be achieved simply by fronting the definite locative expr,~ssion in an active sentence, e.g.

(93) Auf der~ Vortrag folgte eine Diskussion (94) Der Diskussion g~ing ein Vortrag voraus.

FiUmore prcsenis two further quadruples of s,' ~ences and nonsentences involving the verbs develop into, develop cut of, make into, and make out o f as examples of 'mysterious constraints', i~.e.

(95) Every acorn dev,eloped into an oak. (96) An oak de'~eloped out of every acorn (a paraphrase of (95)) (97) Every oak developed out of an acorn (98) *An acorn developed into every oak (not a paraphrase of (97)),

(99) I made evel'y 1o~ into a canoe (100) I made a canoe ~,ut of every log (a paraphra:~e of (99)) (101) I made every ca~:oe out of a log (102) *l made a log into every canoe (not a paraphrase ,of (101)).

Consider first the r~,;tr:icti'oas il;ustrated by the follo~fing:

(103) He made a canoe ~.'~t of a lof; (104) He made a canoe (by deleting the source expression)

238 1t. W. Kirkwood /Surface ordering o f noun phrases

(105) He made a log into a canoe (106) *He made a log (by deleting the nominative expression)

Develop and t~mke are resultative verbs hwolving as participant roles an obliga- tory complement expressing the case category nominative, the 'object of result', which refers to the entity that comes or is brought into existence, and an optional complement expressing the category source. A further participant role may be introduced, that of agent, i.e. the animate being whose activity brings an entity into being from a source. 6 If hem is made direct object of a transitive sentence, source becomes a prepositional phrase, which in the presence of an agent is syntactically dispensable, wf source is made direct object, nominative becomes a prepositional phrase which is syntactically not dispensable. Hence the category nominative is always realized in surface structure. In the case of develop, the rtominative element may be the only catego~y expressed in surface structure. Cf.

(107) An oak develope, l

This would suggest a hierarchy among elements in terms of syntactic cohesion with the verb, there being a closer relation between verb and nominative than between verb and source. It would appear that the relative degree of syntactic cohesion with the verb stands in some relation to the relative degree of communicative importance an element has in what Sgall (1973, 1975) has called the "systemic ordering oY participant roles". On this assumption I propose the ordering agent-source-nomina- tive (called "objective" in Sgall 1973, 1975)as the basic, unmarked order of partici- pants. Tile position of tile verb will be discussed presently. Sentence (107) could be construed as a subtype of existential sentence denoting the, coming into existence of an entity from a source. But whereas in existential--locative sentences the loca- tive element is always present, in what might be called 'source-emergence' sentences the source expression is syntactically dispensable (cf. A dispute arose). The syn- tact.it dispensability of the source expression also accourts for the fact that in English it may be fronted, whereas the prepositional phrase expressing the nomina- tiw, may not (cf. example (114) below).

In the case of three-place predicates such as make, where the case structure involves the roles of agent, source and nominative, if the nominative is rhematic, different options are available, e.g.

(108) He made a canoe out of the log (109) He made the log into a canoe

6 Note that in a sentence lie developed an urge to become independent the referent of the sub.. ject-NP need not be interpreted as 'agent', i.e. as being consciously engaged in an activity. A possible German equivalent under the non-agentive interpretation would be In ihm entwickelte .;4ch ein Drang nach Selbstiindigkeit, i.e. tile referent of ihm is perceived as the location of a process.

1t. W. Kirkwood / Surface ordering of noun phrases 239

Both options may be regarded as unmarked, but each in a different respect: in (108) the surface order conforms to the grammaticalized order or 'syntactic norm' in English: the syntacticaUy optional prepositional phrase is 'outside' the syntactic nucleus subjeet-verb-a,bject; sentence (108) may dlerefore be referred to as 'syn- tactically neutral'. In (109) use of doe verb make into achieves a theme-rheme sequence, and this is the motivation for choosing it. The verb make into may be seen as a 'secondary form' that has been evolved to compensate for constraints of a grammatical or syntactic nature. In English, processes such as (different kinds of) passivization, secondary subjectivization (cf. Rohdenburg 1974), and pseudo-cleft- ing (of. Kirkwood 1970) represent options that haw', been evolved, to a far greater extent than in languages with a relatively free word order, for the purpose of achieving a theme-rheme sequence of elements, i.e. a sequence that is unmarked in format on focus, while conforming to the syntactic norm. The sequence in

(110) He made out of the log a cance

is less acceptable titan the correspon :ling sequence in German; it represents what was earlier called 'Distanzstellung'. 'Kontaktstellung' of elements could be achieved by preposing the source prepositional phrase, e.g.

(111) Out of the log he made a canoe

The sequence

(112) *He made a log into the canoe

wkere the nominative expression is thematic is not possible. Similarly,

(11 - ~ *An acorn d~veloped into the oak

is unacceptable. Farther, preposing of the nominative prepositional phrase, as hi

(114) *Into the canoe he made a log

underlines the fact, mentioned earlier, that syntactically indispensable nominative (in contrast with dispen:;able source) prepositional phrases may not be fronted in English, even if thematic.

It would appear therefore that develop into is used only if the nominative element is rhematic, ~nd indeed tlhis is precisely the motivation for its development and use, which is to achieve a theme-rheme sequence; this also appl:ies to other 'secondary forms' such as passive, seco,nda.ry subjectivization, pseudo-c]tefting. The alternative structure with develop out o f yields a rheme-theme sequenc f~ on account of the opera~:ion of the criterion of syntactic cohesion; it is thus symaeti-

240 H. I¢. Kirkwood / Surface ordering of noun phrases

tally neutral but marked in terms of information focus. Note further that in a sen- tence of the type illustrated by (109) it is possible for the NPs expressing source and nominative to have a definite determiner, providing that the nominative ele- ment has information focus,, i.e. conveys a relatively higher degree of communica- tive dynamism, e.g.

(115)//He made the log into this/that canoe//

where the has anaphoric and this/that have exophoric (situational) reference. The sequence

(116) *//He made the loginto that canoe//

where that has anaphoric reference, is unacceptable. In discussing the ordering of participant roles and the surface structure realiza-

tion of this order Sgall (1973: 45ff.) distinguishes two scales: the scale of com- municative importance "referring to the hierarchy determined by the roles of participants" and the scale of communicative dynamism which is "reserved for the actual hierarchy of elements of a sentence, be it in accordance with the scale of com- municative impertance (as in the first or basic layer), or affected by deviating influence of context or situation". The two scales are in accordance (i) in sentences in which no element is contextu,dly bound, e.g. A boy broke a window, and (ii) in sentences in wtd, ch all contextually bound elements have a lower degree of com- municative importance (in the basic, unmarked, 'systemic' ordering) (cf. 'Sgall 1973: 69, 1975: 307ff.) than the contextually non-bound elements e.g. John gave me a book, The boy broke a window. The two scales differ when a contextually bound element A has a higher degree of communicative importance in the systemic ordering than some other element B that is contextually non-bound. If in English a nominative (Sgall's objective) is contextually bound, while the agent in the given sentence is non-bound, i.e. included in the focus, there are two options: either the order objective-verb-agentive is retained in surface structure, to achieve which a pas- sive form of the verb is used, e.g.

(117)//The wineow was broken by a boy//

or the order of participants (in terms of the actual degree of communicative dynamism) is reversed to agen:~ve-verb-objective, but the agentive is assigned tonic prominence, e.g.

(118)//A boy broke the window//

Sgall (1975: 308) suggests that the order agent, dative, instrurnent, objective, origin (= source) represents the basic, systemic ordering of participants. The follow~

1t. I¢. Kirkwood / Surface o~deri~g of noun phrases 241

ing semantic representations and the corresponding surface forms (from Sgaa 1975: 310) show a configuration of agent, objective (= nom) and origin (= source):

(119) ((I) made (b) (every canoe) (a log)) Ag Obj Orig

(119a) I made every canoe out of a log

(120) ((I) (every 1o~0 made (b) (a canoe)) Ag Orig Obj

(120a) I made every log into a canoe

(121) ((I) (every log) made (b) ( a canoe)) Ag Orig Obj

(121a) I made a canoe out of every log

In the semantic representations (119-121) the superscript (b) marks the element as contextually bound. In the representations given here participants preceding the verb are contextually bound, i.e. are outside the focus; participants fellowing the verb are non-bound, i.e. included in the focus. In (119) the scales of cor~:,municative importance (relative position in the systemic order) and of communicative dynam- ism (determined by contextual boundness vs. contextual non-boundness) are in accord; the surface order corresponds to the systemic order. In (120)and (l t21) origin is contextually bound, i.e. outside the focus mad thematic. In thh; case the 'inversion form' of the verb ~nay be used, i.e. the form make into h~ place of the form make ou t of, the resulting sequence of elements being theme-rher~le. If the inversion Ioim i:~ no t used, the positions of ofib~,in and objective in the string are exchanged (cf. 121 a). The sam~ appUes to examples (12 ~.- 124):

(122) ((every oak) developed (an acorn)) Obj Orig

(122a) Every oak: developed out of an acorn

(123) ((every acorn) developed (b) (an oak) Orig Obj

(123a) Every acorn developed into an oak

(124) ((ever3, acorn)developed (b) (an oak)) Orig Obj

(124a) An oak developed out of every acorn

SgaU's analysis, ~f which this is only a very brief summary, calls tbr the follow-

242 H. I41. K i rkwood / Sur face ordering o f noun phrases

ing comments: The conversion of (121) into (121a) and of (124) i,ato (124a) allows the grammatiealized order of elements to be preserved, the resultant ~quence being syntactically ..neutral (for English) but marked in terms of infornmtion focus. The conversion a,f (120) into (120a) and of (123) into (123a) yields a surface order that is neutral or unmarked both syntacticaUy and in terms of information focus. Hence we may expect that in a language like German, in which the surface order of ele. ments is not constrained by grammatical or syntactic criteria to the same degree as in English, such 'secondary forms' will not have been developed or be used so extensively. And tl-ds is what we find. Compare the sentences

(125) Aus dem J~iger wurde ein Schmetterling Origin/ Objective/ source nominative

(126) T h a h , , n t e m ~ q t . . . . . rl int ,-~ h , , * * ~ , - ¢ l , ,

Origin/ Objective/ source nominative

Other :'onsiderations suggest that the tentative systemic ordering of the par- ticipants origin (or source) and objective (or nominative) proposed by Sgall may not be correct. Just as in contextually independent sentences (whe;:e the two scales are in harmony) agent is lower on the scale than objective, sinc~ the action per- formed in respect of the entity presupposes an agent (hence the 'domin~mce' of the orders SVO, SOV, VSO, of wbJch OVS, OSV, etc. are contextua variants), so in existential-locative or source~emergence sentences (or in transitive operative-facti- tire sentences in which such a structure is embedded) the existeno; or coming into existence of an entity presupposes a location or source in which it exists or from which it emerges, which is typically 'definite'. I therefore suggest the following revised order of pa~icipants in the systemic ordering. 7

l o c a t i v e - - n o m i n a t i v e v e r b

s o u r c e - - n o m i n a t i v e v e r b

a g e n t -- s o u r c e n o m i n a t i v e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v e r b

"7 I am propo:ing this as the basic ordering of participants tn existential-locative (or source- emergeoce~ ar ~1 in operativc-factitivc sentences. A sentence sut.h as The book is on the table is locational: I refer to a particular individu~, identifying knowled~;e of which on the part of the hearer is presumed, and assert its location in a certain place. In an existential-locative sentence such as Tkere is a book on the table, I assert the existence or presence in a given place of an individual of a certain kind. The locational sentenc ~., with a definite NP in subject position, con- tains an additional (referential) presuFFositton and is more context-dependent, in a broad sense o~ the terrr, than the existential-locAtive se.-.tence.

H. iV. Kirkwood /Surface orderi~lg of noun phrases 243

This ordering would correspond to the hierarchical order in terms of relative closeness to the verb which may be represented as

(agent (source (nominative verb,l/t )

as seen in

(127) ..., dass aus einer Eichel eine Eiche sich ent~ickelte l ~ _ _ L . . . .

. . . . . . ~

I assume here that both English and German have undergone an incomplt te shift from SOV to SVO (cf. Bartsch and Vennemana 1972) and that the shift has been carried further in E~lglish than in German. Hence in the following sentences, the ele- ments in ( I28) are serialized naturally, and in (129) they are serialized 'non-natu- rally' in terms of syntactic cohesion or in t~rms of the hierarchy of opera tor - operand relationships:

(128) Er hat aus einem Baumstamm ein Beot g,:,.macht (129) Er machte aus einem Baumstamm ein BoL~t

The surface order source-nominative would ~hus appear to be a 'relic' of the older order with the verb in end position. Natural serialization is achieved if the non- finite part of the verb is mo~ed to end position. This feature of modern German may partly explain the preference for compound, ~:~se forms (e.g. perfect w~. preterite, especially in rr~ain clauses) and f~,r 'function, verb structures' of the type Glauben schenken, Gefa]len linden. It would therefore appear that in determining a basic, systemic ordering of participants on t~ae evidence of the surface order due consideration should bc given to the differert, language-specitqc criteria governing or constraining the linear order of element: ~nd to the different kinds of state- ments, e.g. existential-locative vs. locational, expressed by a particular configuration and arrangement of semantic categories.

References

Admoni, W. 1962. q]ber die Wortstellurg im Deut:;¢:hen'. In: l)as Ringen um eine neue deutsche Grammatik. Darmstadt: Wisse, lschaftliche BuchgeseUschaft. pp. 376-380.

Anderson, J.M. 1971. The grammar of cas~. Cambridge, England: Catnbridge Uaiversity Press. Bach, E. and R,T. Harms, eds. 1968. Universals in linguistic theory. New Yolk: Holt, Rinehar~t

and Winston. Bartsch, R. and T. Venne.mann. 1972. Semantic structure.;. Frankfurt am Main: Athefiffun~. Dahl, O. 1973. On the ~er, antics of quantified noun ;~hrases and reh~ted problems. L:~gical

grarnmai reports 5. Department of Linguistics, University of Gothenl:urg.

244 if. W. Kirkwood / Surface ordering of noun phrases

Dahl, (3~. 1974. "Topic-co:~amevt structure revisited'. In: Dahl, ed. 1974. Dahl, 6 , ed. 1974~ Topic and comment, contextual bound3ess and focus. Papiere zur Textlin-

guistik 6, Hamburg: Buske. Fillmore, C.F. 1968. 'The case for case'. In: Bach and Harms, eds. 1968, Firbas, J. 196&t. On clef'ruing the theme in 'Functional Sentence Analysis'. Travaux finguisti-

que~; d,e Prague I: 267-280. Firbas, J. 1966b~ Non-thematic subjects in contemporary English. Travaux linguistiques de

Prague 2: 237-254. Gee, J.P. 1974 Jackendoff's Thematic Hierarchy Condition and the passive construction.

Lint,~istic inquiry 5: 304-309. Gruber, J.S. 1965. Studies in lexical relations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. M.I.T.,

C~Lbridge, Mass. (Di,.itributecl by the Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, indhna.)

Halliday, M.A.K 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Journal of linguistics 3: 5 ' ? -81 ,199-244.

Halliday, M.A.K 1970. A course in spoken English: intonation. London: Oxford University Pl:e~g.

l~,ol~, .nr0~ff , R . S . 10"/*7 ~ , . . . , ,~ , , , ; , . ; . . . , . . . . +.~,;.-..~ ".- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,-,v.,~,o,.,,.. t.. generative grammar. ,~m.iotlu~u, tvx~.. l'di.l. 'r. Pr,~ss.

Jackendloff, R.S. 1976. Towards an explanatory semantic representation. Linguistic inquiry 7: 89-150.

Keenan, E.L., ed, 1~75. Formal semantics of natural language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge Uni'~'ersity Pre ~s.

Kirkwood, ti.W. 1969. Aspectg of word order an~t its communicative function in English and G,~rraan. Journal of linguistics 5" 85-107.

Kirkwo, xl, H.W. ;1970. Some systemic means of 'functional sentence perspective' in English and Gerraan. IRAI. 8: 103-114.

Kiikwo,xl, H.W. 1973. Theme and theme in English an, t German. Unpublished doct.oral disser- tation. Univer.;ity of Edinburgh.

Kirkwo~xt, H.W. 1977. Discontinuous n ,un phrases in existential sentences in English and Gerraan. Jourlial of ling~isti,'s 13: 53-66.

Kuno, '3. 1971. The post:ion of locatives in existential sentences. Linguistic inquiry 3: 333- 378.

Kury~'owicz, J. 1964. The inflexional categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Lyons, J. 1967. A note on possessive, existential and locative sentences. Foundations of lan-

guage 3" 390-396. Paul, H. 1958. Deutsche Grammatik. Vol. I11. 4th ed. Hallo (Saale): Niemeyer. Rohdenburg, G. 1974. Sekundiire Subjektivierungan im Englischen und Deutschen. PgKS-

Arbe.itsbericht 8. 8ielefeld: Cornelsen-Velhagen und Klasing. Sgall, P. 1972. Fillmore's mystelies and topic vs. comment. Journal of lir, gu:istics 8: 283-288. Sgall, P., E. tlaji~ov~ and E. Benetov~, 1973. Topic, focus and generative semantics. Kronberg/

Taunus: Scriptor. SgalL P. 1973. 'Conditions on tile use of sentences and a semantic representation of topic and

focu:C In: Keenan, ed. ~975" 297-312.

Henry ~P. Kirlovood Born Edinburgh, Scotland, 19.'35.

University education: 1953-57, University of Edinburgh. 1957, M.A. degree in German language and literature. 1970-73, postgraduat,. • study at University of Edinburgh. 1973, Ph.D. dl,gre¢ in linguistics.

H. W. tfirkwood / Surface ordering of noun phrases 245

Posts held: 1957-64, 'Loktor', University of Heide!!berg. 1)64-77, Lecturer in German Imnguage and Linguistics, Urfive, r~ity of Surrey. Presently Senic, r Lecturer in Linguistics, The New University of Ulster, Coleraine, Northern Ireland.

Publications J 969. Aspects of word order and its communicative function in English and German. Journal of

linguistics 5: 84-107. 1970. On the thematic function and syntactic meanings of the grammatical subject in English.

Linguistische Berichte 9: 35-46. 1977. Discontinuous noun phrases in existential sentences in English and German. Journal of

linguistics 13: 53-66.