Word order variability in OV languages. A study on scrambling, verb movement, and postverbal elements with a focus on Uralic languages
Andreas Pregla
July 2024 

This thesis explores word order variability in verb-final languages. Verb-final languages have a reputation for a high amount of word order variability. However, that reputation amounts to an urban myth due to a lack of systematic investigation. This thesis provides such a systematic investigation by presenting original data from several verb-final languages with a focus on four Uralic ones: Estonian, Udmurt, Meadow Mari, and South Sámi. As with every urban myth, there is a kernel of truth in that many unrelated verb-final languages share a particular kind of word order variability, A-scrambling, in which the fronted elements do not receive a special information-structural role, such as topic or contrastive focus. That word order variability goes hand in hand with placing focussed phrases further to the right in the position directly in front of the verb. Variations on this pattern are exemplified by Uyghur, Standard Dargwa, Eastern Armenian, and three of the Uralic languages, Estonian, Udmurt, and Meadow Mari. So far for the kernel of truth, but the fourth Uralic language, South Sámi, is comparably rigid and does not feature this particular kind of word order variability. Further such comparably rigid, non-scrambling verb-final languages are Dutch, Afrikaans, Amharic, and Korean. In contrast to scrambling languages, non-scrambling languages feature obligatory subject movement, causing word order rigidity next to other typical EPP effects. The EPP is a defining feature of South Sámi clause structure in general. South Sámi exhibits a one-of-a-kind alternation between SOV and SAuxOV order that is captured by the assumption of the EPP and obligatory movement of auxiliaries but not lexical verbs. Other languages that allow for SAuxOV order either lack an alternation because the auxiliary is obligatorily present (Macro-Sudan SAuxOVX languages), or feature an alternation between SVO and SAuxOV (Kru languages; V2 with underlying OV as a fringe case). In the SVO–SAuxOV languages, both auxiliaries and lexical verbs move. Hence, South Sámi shows that the textbook difference between the VO languages English and French, whether verb movement is restricted to auxiliaries, also extends to OV languages. SAuxOV languages are an outlier among OV languages in general but are united by the presence of the EPP. Word order variability is not restricted to the preverbal field in verb-final languages, as most of them feature postverbal elements (PVE). PVE challenge the notion of verb-finality in a language. Strictly verb-final languages without any clause-internal PVE are rare. This thesis charts the first structural and descriptive typology of PVE. Verb-final languages vary in the categories they allow as PVE. Allowing for non-oblique PVE is a pivotal threshold: when non-oblique PVE are allowed, PVE can be used for information-structural effects. Many areally and genetically unrelated languages only allow for given PVE but differ in whether the PVE are contrastive. In those languages, verb-finality is not at stake since verb-medial orders are marked. In contrast, the Uralic languages Estonian and Udmurt allow for any PVE, including information focus. Verb-medial orders can be used in the same contexts as verb-final orders without semantic and pragmatic differences. As such, verb placement is subject to actual free variation. The underlying verb-finality of Estonian and Udmurt can only be inferred from a range of diagnostics indicating optional verb movement in both languages. In general, it is not possible to account for PVE with a uniform analysis: rightwards merge, leftward verb movement, and rightwards phrasal movement are required to capture the cross- and intralinguistic variation. Knowing that a language is verb-final does not allow one to draw conclusions about word order variability in that language. There are patterns of homogeneity, such as the word order variability driven by directly preverbal focus and the givenness of postverbal elements, but those are not brought about by verb-finality alone. Preverbal word order variability is restricted by the more abstract property of obligatory subject movement, whereas the determinant of postverbal word order variability has to be determined in the future.

Format:	[ pdf ]
Reference:	lingbuzz/008278 (please use that when you cite this article)
Published in:	Universität Potsdam, https://doi.org/10.25932/publishup-64363
keywords:	syntax, verb-finality, word order, scrambling, postverbal elements, uralic, estonian, udmurt, mari, south sámi, free variation
Downloaded:	369 times

 

[ edit this article | back to article list ]