On Wackernagel ten years later: Personal Pronouns in Information Structure / Peti-Stantić, Anita. - 152-154 str.
In some languages some pronominal forms contain so called full forms and clitics. Although treatment of clitics differ within particular theoretical frameworks, most linguists take them to be syntactically independent and phonologically dependent, always attached to a host (Nespor and Vogel 1986). Emphasizing the role of syntax and phonology, and leaving the semantics out of the picture, suggests that the clitics are just “shortened” version of their full counterparts (hence their name), both fulfilling the same roles in the sentence structure. I analyze the clitic forms of Croatian personal pronouns in the framework of Parallel Architecture (Jackendoff 1997, 2010) aiming to show that the phonology-syntax connection does not exhaust all there is because they participate in a sentence information structure through their position in a linear structure. Such a claim rests on the scrambling hypothesis, put forth for Slavic, but also for other languages, mainly Japanese (Franks, 2000 ; Bošković 2000, 20001, 2009). My hypothesis is that full forms and clitics do not differ in syntax, but they differ in a semantic potential, which leads to their ability to change the information structure of a sentence. Therefore, I analyze sentences such as: 1.1. Studentica socijalne psihologije iz Zagreba mi donosi brojne nove i zanimljive knjige. ‘The student of social psychology brings me many new and interesting books FROM ZAGREB.’ The potential syntactic structures of this sentence are 1.1.a and b while potential prosodic structures are 1.1.c and d: 1.1. a [S [NP [N studentica] [AP GEN socialne psihologije] [PP iz Zagreba]] [VP ; [V donosi] [NP [AP brojne nove i zanimljive knjige]]]] or 1.1.b [S [NP [N studentica] [AP GEN socialne psihologije] [VP [PP iz Zagreba] ; [V donosi] [NP [AP brojne nove i zanimljive knjige]]]] 1.1. c (U (IP studentica socijalne psihologije iz Zagreba) (IP mi donosi brojne nove i zanimljive knjige)) or 1.1.d (U (IP studentica socijalne psihologije) (IP iz Zagreba mi donosi brojne nove i zanimljive knjige)) I will analyze these structures and compare them to the following ones: 1.2. Studentica socijalne psihologije iz Zagreba donosi mi brojne nove i zanimljive knjige. ‘The student of social psychology from Zagreb BRINGS me many new and interesting books from Zagreb.’ The potential syntactic structures of this sentence are 1.2.a and b while potential prosodic structures are 1.2.c and d: 1.2.a [S [NP [N studentica] [GEN socialne psihologije] [PP iz Zagreba]] [VP [V donosi] ;] [NP [AP brojne nove i zanimljive knjige]]] or 1.2.b [S [NP [N studentica] [GEN socialne psihologije]] [VP [PP iz Zagreba] [V donosi] ;] [NP [AP brojne nove i zanimljive knjige]]]]1.3.c (U (IP studentica socijalne psihologije iz Zagreba) (IP donosi mi brojne nove i zanimljive knjige)) or 1.2. d (U (IP studentica socijalne psihologije) (IP (PPh iz Zagreba) (PPh donosi mi brojne nove i zanimljive knjige)) All the aforementioned sentences are grammatical in Croatian and the variation among them is due to the scrambling potential. As presented, in these sentences, contrary to perpetuated claims in the literature about their mechanical positioning, clitics participate in scrambling and therefore in the information packaging. Although such claim is not uncontroversial, my aim is to show that the linear order informs the structural difference between 1.1 and 1.2 and not the vice versa. BIBLIOGRAPHY: 1. Bošković, Željko (2000) “Second position clitisation: Syntax and/or phonology?”, in Beukema and den Dikken (2000), 71-119. 2. Bošković, Željko (2001), On the nature of the syntax- phonology interface. Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd. 3. Bošković, Željko (2009) “Scrambling.”, in The Slavic Languages, ed. by T. Berger, K. Gutschmidt, S. Kempgen, and P. Kosta. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter 4. Cardinaletti, Anna and Michal Starke (1994) “The Typology of Structural Deficiency on the Three Grammatical Classes”, in: University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 4, n. 2: 41-109. 5. Franks, Steven (2000) “Clitics at the interface”, in Beukema and den Dikken (2000), 1-46. 6. Franks, S. and Holloway King, T. (2000) A Handbook of Slavic Clitics. Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax. Oxford Univeristy Press. 7. Hayes, B. 1989. ”The prosodic hierarchy in meter.” In Phonetics and Phonology, Volume 1: Rhythm and Meter, P. Kiparsky & G. Youmans (eds.), 201–260. San Diego: Academic Press. 8. Jackendoff, R. (1997). The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 9. Jackendoff, R. (2010). Meaning and the Lexicon: The Parallel Architecture 1975-2010, Oxford University Press. 10. Kaisse, E. M. (1985). Connected Speech: The Interaction of Syntax and Phonology. San Diego, Academic Press. 11. Nespor, M. and Vogel, I. (1986, 2007) Prosodic Phonology. Walter de Gruyter. 12. Peti-Stantić, A. (2014) “Informativity of the sentence information structure: word order.” Language as Information. (eds.) Anita Peti-Stantić, Mateusz Milan Stanojević. Peter Lang Verlag. 155-178. 13. Peti-Stantić, A. (2015) “How much Grammar is needed in Lexicon?” in: Slovnica in slovar: aktualni jezikovni opis/Grammar and Dictionary: Current language description, (ed.) Smolej, Mojca, Ljubljana : Center za slovenščino kot drugi/tuji jezik, Filozofska fakulteta v Ljubljani: 569-577.