jasinskaja his slavic

8/9/2019 Jasinskaja HIS Slavic

1/27

Information Structure in Slavic

Katja Jasinskaja

The Slavic (or Slavonic) languages are traditionally divided into three groups: EastSlavic, which includes Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian; West Slavic, which in-cludes Polish, Czech, and Slovak, as well as Kashubian and Upper and Lower Sor-bian, minority languages spoken by smaller populations in Baltic coast Poland and

southeastern Germany, respectively; South Slavic, which includes Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian(or BCS), Slovenian (or Slovene), Macedonian and Bulgarian. The Slavic lan-guages are notoriously rich in linguistic means expressing or sensitive to categoriesof information structure. This chapter will give a concise overview of these phe-nomena, concentrating mainly on descriptive generalisations and only touchingupon theoretical issues that are more controversial.

The first two sections, Intonation(section 1) and Syntax(section 2), focus onthe two most widely discussed means of marking information structure (IS). Sec-tion 1 is concerned with position and shape of pitch accents, whereas section 2deals, first and foremost, with the phenomenon of free word order, as well aswith processes such as ellipsis, clefting, and doubling. Both sections are divided

into two subsections: one describing the expression offocus, and the other dealingwith the IS categories background,given,topicand delimitation. These categoriesare grouped together because they tend to share the same patterns of expression.For reasons of space, the coverage of related issues will not be as comprehen-sive as would be desirable. The discussion of focus will be mainly limited to theissue of broadvs. narrow focus distinction, at the cost ofinformation focus vs.contrastive focus, also prominent in IS literature on Slavic languages. I will con-centrate mostly on IS in simple SVO sentences, although intransitive sentences,as well as sentences with more complex structure surely deserve separate atten-tion (see esp. Zybatow and Junghanns, 1998, and Bailyn, 2012, pp. 254266, onintransitives). Finally, the section on Intonation is based almost exclusively onRussian data, even though the Russian intonational system is not representative ofthe Slavic languages in all respects. These painful cuts had to be made in favourof the discussion of issues that figure less frequently in the literature on SlavicIS. This includes broader coverage of different syntactic means other than plainword order permutationsclefts of various kinds, as well as so-called predicateclefts (Abels, 2001; Bondaruk, 2009). A separate section (section 3) discussesways in which IS interacts with Slavic clitic systems (Franks and King, 2000)anintriguing, but badly understudied issue. Finally, section 4 gives several examplesof IS-sensitive behaviour of Slavic discourse particles.

1


2/27

1 Intonation

1.1 Focus

In Slavic languages as in many others, focus is expressed intonationally by thepri-mary, or nuclear, i.e. the most prominentpitch accent of an intonational phrase:The nuclear accent must be realised on one of the words of the focused constituent.That word is called the focus exponent(indicated by small caps in the examples).Normally, the most prominent accent is the lastaccent in the intonational phrase,which means that any word that follows the focus exponent bears no accent. Thismay be different in (dialects of) BCS and Slovenian where pitch accents are as-signed lexically (see e.g. Smiljanic and Hualde, 2000; Jurgec, 2007). However,also in those dialects one word in a sentence tends to be more prominent than the

others. According to Godjevac (2006), this is achieved in BCS by association ofthe L- phrase tone with that word. When I use the term focus exponent with ref-erence to those languages, I mean a word made prosodically prominent in somesuch way.

This section is concerned with the relationship between the focus exponentand the focused constituent: when the focused constituent is longer than one word,which word of that constituent is the focus exponent, or conversely, given the focusexponent, how big the constituent in focus is, also known as the focus projectionproblem (see Arregi, this volume). In traditional descriptions, as well as in the bulkof theoretical work on Slavic IS, a distinction is made between neutral and non-neutral (also emphatic, emotive, expressive, etc.) intonation in declarative utter-ances (see e.g. Svetozarova, 1998, on Russian; Godjevac, 2006, on BCS). A com-mon assumption is that in sentences with canonical word order (SVO, cf. section 2),neutral intonation is ambiguous between broad and narrow focus, whereas non-neutral intonation indicates narrow focus on the minimal constituent on whichit is realised (see e.g. Bailyn, 2012). This view, though widely adopted, raises anumber of hard questions, which I will discuss with reference to Russian.

Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the two intonation patterns for a simple Russian SVOsentence (1) (the vertical lines indicate the boundaries of the syllable mu bearingthe nuclear accent).

(1) MarinaMarina:NO M

slualalisten:IMPERF:PAST

muzyku.music:ACC

Ru

Marina listened to music.Table 1 summarises the prosodic features attributed to neutral vs. non-neutralintonation by different authors. The nuclear accents differ in the alignment of thefalling pitch movement. In the neutral pattern, the high (H) tone is aligned withthe pretonic syllable or earlier, the low (L) tone is usually realised on the stressedsyllable, the pitch movement on the stressed syllable shows a characteristic concaveshape. In the non-neutral pattern, the H is realised at the onset of the stressedsyllable with a subsequent sharp (convex-shaped) fall to L. The two intonation

2


3/27

neutral non-neutral

alignment of the nuclear fall early (HL*, IK-1) late (H*L, IK-2)position of the nuclear accent utterance-final anywhereprenuclear pitch accents on every word few if anydownstep yes nonuclear fall excursion low highintensity of the accented syllable low high

Table 1: Prosodic features of neutral and non-neutral intonation in Russian

L H L H L L

marina slushala muzyku

160

330

200

250

300

Pitch(Hz)

Time (s)0.05 1.25

Figure 1: neutral intonation

H L L

marina slushala muzyku

80

150

100

120

140

Pitch(Hz)

Time (s)0 1.25

Figure 2: non-neutral intonation

contours are labelled as HL* and H*L, respectively, by Alter (1997), or as IK-1and IK-2, in Bryzgunovas (1980) influential classification of Russianintonational

constructions(intonacionnye konstrukcii).These two nuclear accent types typically go together with other features listed

in Table 1. Most importantly, the nuclear accent in the neutral pattern is assumedto always occur on the last word. The standard view is that HL* (IK-1) is assignedby a rule such as the Nuclear Stress Rule laChomsky and Halle (1968) (see alsoBailyn, 2012, p. 252, for an application to Russian, and Zubizarreta, this volume,for discussion of more recent developments):

(2) Nuclear Stress Rule (NSR):Assign nuclear stress/accent to the rightmost lexical category in S.

Besides, HL* (IK-1) is usually preceded by prenuclear pitch accents on every fully

stressed word. The accents form a downstep pattern, i.e. the H tone of each accentis realised lower than the H tone of the previous accent (cf. the pitch movementson marinaand slualain Figure 1), which means that the H tone of HL* (IK-1)itself, being the last in the sequence, is realised lowest and has a relatively lowexcursion. In contrast, H*L (IK-2) can occur on any word in the utterance, tendsto have higher excursion and a low number of prenuclear accents.

According to this view, (1) would have the accentuation options shown in (3)and (4). The neutral pattern in (3) is ambiguous between focus on the direct

3


4/27

object music (narrow focus), VP focus, and sentence focus (broad focus), i.e. (3)

can be an appropriate answer to all the questions listed in (5). The non-neutralpatterns in (4) indicate narrow focus on the accented constituent, i.e. (4-a) is onlyappropriate as an answer to (5-c), (4-b) answers the question What did Marina doto the music?, whereas (4-c) answers the question Who listened to the music?

(3) MarinaLH*

sluala!H*

MUZYKU.!HL*

Ru

(4) a. Marina sluala MUZYKU.H*L

Ru

b. Marina SLUALAH*L

muzyku.

c. MARINAH*L

sluala muzyku.

(5) a. What happened?b. What did Marina do?c. What did Marina listen to?

Notice that for (4-b) and (4-c) the generalisation is the same as in English or Ger-man: In an SVO sentence, nuclear accent on S or V does not project focus toVP or the whole sentence. Only in (4-a) there is an apparent difference. While inEnglish and German the direct object can generally serve as the focus exponent ofVP and S focus, in (4-a) these options are not available.

However, this generalisation is not empirically correct. On the one hand, yes,there seems to exist a tendency for narrow focus interpretation in sentences like(4-a) in contrast to broad focus in (3) (see e.g. Mehlhorn, 2002). On the otherhand, it is far from a categorical requirement (as also argued by Yanko, 2001, p. 71,pp. 9394). As a matter of fact, the pitch contour shown in Figure 2, which corre-sponds to (4-a), was produced in response to a VP question What did Marina dolast night after dinner?1, implying VP focus. But even if this realisation might beconsidered unusual in answers to questions (as suggested by previous productionstudies, e.g. Alter, 1997, and Mehlhorn, 2002, cf. p. 151), there are other contextsin which the choice of H*L (IK-2) over HL* (IK-1) to express VP or whole sen-tence focus is quite natural.

For instance, it is often pointed out that H*L (IK-2) in Russian can also signalcontrastivefocus, which can be both narrow and broad. For example, (4-a) canbe uttered as a denial ofMarina citala gazetuMarina was reading a newspaper,so the whole VP sluala muzykuwas listening to music in (4-a) constitutes thecorrection and the focus of the sentence (again, see Mehlhorn, 2002). Furthermore,

1The pitch contours in Figures 1 and 2 were produced by two different speakers in response tothe same stimulus in a small pilot study, where participants had to read aloud answers to questionsasked by the experimenter.

4


5/27

H*L (IK-2) is also typical in sentences that express explanation (Yanko, 2001,

pp. 9394), very much in the sense of the discourse relationexplanationin theoriesof discourse coherence such as Kehler (2002) and Asher and Lascarides (2003).That is, (4-a) would be a natural answer to a question like Why did no one pick upthe phone?, which induces focus on the whole sentence.

Moreover, although discussion in the existing literature on Russian IS is al-most exclusively limited to the distinction between HL* (IK-1) and H*L (IK-2) indeclarative utterances, a closer consideration of other pitch accent types suggeststhat they follow the same pattern. For instance, LH*L (IK-3) is a typical nuclearaccent inyes/no-questions. (6) is a biased question with three possible interpreta-tions: (a) Is it music that Marina listened to? (object focus); (b) Is it listen tomusic that Marina did? (VP focus); and (c) Is it Marina listening to music thathappened? (all focus).2

(6) Marina sluala MUZYKU?LH*L

Ru

In other words, accents of different types seem to be able to project focus to VP orthe whole sentence if the nuclear accent is in a projecting position (i.e. on O inSVO sentences).

The other generalisationthat HL* (IK-1) is only possible in sentence-finalpositionis also questionable. Again, there might be a tendency to this effect.However, Bryzgunova (1980) gives lots of examples to the contrary, and what ismore, IK-1 in non-final positions seems to be subject to the same restrictions on

focus projection as IK-2 in (4-b) and (4-c). In (7), the nuclear HL* (IK-1) is on ademonstrative adverbial at the left periphery of the sentence, i.e. in a non-projectingposition. The sentence has narrow focus on the adverbial, which is clear from theassociation with focus effect of the additive particleialso.

(7) Bryzgunova (1980, p. 100):I

and/also

TOGDA

HL*then

on

he

uexal

left

He left also then. [He had left on a number of other occasions.]

In other words, it is the position rather than the shape of the nuclear accent (or

the intonation pattern as a whole) that seems to be primarily responsible for restrict-ing the possibilities of broad vs. narrow focus interpretation in Russian, just like inEnglish or German. The ubiquitous fixation on the traditional opposition of neu-tral vs. non-neutral intonation (also criticised a lot by Yokoyama, 2001, 2009b)has obscured this similarity. This is not to say that other characteristics of neutral

2Unbiasedyes/no-questions (Did Marina listen to music?) are expressed in Russian by the com-bination of LH*L with verum focus, i.e. the accent is realised on the finite verb (see also Ladd, 1996;Meyer and Mleinek, 2006, on Russianyes/no-questions).

5


6/27

and non-neutral intonation listed in table 1 play no role at all. One thing to be

said of downstep is that step by step lowering of the topline on which high tonesare realised makes the last accent stick out less than it does otherwise, so theaccents in the utterance sound almost equally prominent.3 This could be used asone of the means to indicate broad focus in contrast to narrow focus. However, thepresence of downstep has also been associated with other functional distinctions,such as the distant vs. close mode of communication (Yokoyama, 2001), as wellas the narrative discourse mode (Kodzasov, 1996, pp. 196197; Bolinger, 1978,p. 490). In other words, one should not expect to find simple one-to-one corre-spondences between these prosodic features and categories of IS. The distinctionbetween broad and narrow focus might be signalled by a complex combination offeatures, in which, however, the position of the nuclear accent plays the leadingrole.

1.2 Background, given, topic, and delimitation

This section discusses intonational realisation of various information-structuralcategories other than focus with reference to Russian. But first, a general remarkon secondary accents.

The primary, or the nuclear accent is the last and the most prominent accent inthe intonational phrase. It may or may not be preceded by one or more secondary,or prenuclear accents. The number and the shape of prenuclear accents depend ona number of factors, among which IS is only one. Crucially, prenuclear accentscan be realised, in principle, on any word in the sentence that precedes the focus

exponent. It can be both a contrastive topic and a continuing aboutness topic (asnoted by Mehlhorn and Zybatow, 2000, and Yanko, 2001). But it can also be anon-topical element of the background, a non-topical delimitation phrase, or partof the focus other than the focus exponent. As for post-nuclear accents, accordingto the standard view they do not exist (the nuclear accent is the last). Anythingthat follows the focus exponent has no accent, regardless of its IS function (seee.g. Yanko, 2001, on post-focal vs. pre-focal themes).4 This raises the questionwhether categories such as given, topic, or delimitation have any specific intona-tional marking, that is, whether there is such a thing as deaccentuation of givenmaterial or the topic accent in Russian.

Givenness-driven deaccentuation surely exists in Russian in the sense that givenmaterial avoids nuclear accent. When given material is outside focus it is out ofreach for the nuclear accent, which has to be realised inside the focused con-stituent. If given material is a proper part of the focused constituent, the nuclearaccent will be realised on some other part that is not given. If given material is re-

3This is also the reason why this pattern is sometimes characterised as not expressing any focusat all.

4Some authors writing on Russian intonation (e.g. Meyer and Mleinek, 2006) have characterisedcertain intonational phenomena as post-nuclear accents. I will not take a stand on this issue, whichcertainly requires proper investigation.

6


7/27


8/27

In other words, only interrogatives seem to have a special kind of contrastive topic

accent. For the rest, the accents often referred to in the literature as the topic ortheme accents, are probably just prenuclear accents that happen to be realised ona topic or theme. In those cases, IS plays a role only in so far as some IS func-tions tend to be associated with greater prosodic prominence (contrastive topic,delimitation), which means that they are more likely to receive prenuclear accentand the accent will be realised higher and/or with a greater excursion,6 while otherIS functions (given, continuing topic) tend to lack prosodic prominence, are lesslikely to receive prenuclear accent, and if they do, the accent will be relatively lessexpressed. However, the shape of the accents is determined by other factors, andeven their excursion/height is more strongly influenced by the overall characteris-tics of the intonation contour than by IS.7

2 Syntax

Syntactic means that are involved in encoding the categories of information struc-ture include, first and foremost, constituent order, as well as a number of specificconstructions and processes such as ellipsis, clefting and doubling.

Slavic languages were among the first that attracted the linguists attention tothe phenomenon of free word order, i.e. constituent order dependent on the dis-course status of the constituent rather than on its grammatical function. One couldsay that Slavic word order created the case for information structure in linguis-tics, promoted in the works of the Prague School (Mathesius, 1932; Dane, 1960;Adamec, 1966; Sgall et al., 1980; Firbas, 1992). The topic gave rise to an enor-mous amount of literature both within the traditional Prague School approach andin generative linguistics, as well as in other theoretical frameworks. More or lessrecent overview articles on Slavic word order include Siewierska and Uhlrov(1998); Junghanns and Zybatow (2009); Kosta and Schrcks (2009); Bokovic(2009); Yokoyama (2009a). Some recent dissertations and books on the topic areVan Gelderen (2003), Kallestinova (2007), Slioussar (2007), Dyakonova (2009),Bailyn (2012) on Russian, Mykhaylyk (2010) on Ukrainian, Godjevac (2006) onBCS, Sturgeon (2008) on Czech, to name just a few. It will not be possible togive an adequate summary of all this work in this section. I will therefore onlygive a brief survey of the main generalisations and concentrate on issues that arecontroversial or have received less attention than they should have.

6In fact, contrastive topics and delimitation phrases receive an accent almost obligatorily, perhapswith the exception of very short, one syllable expressions. One could argue that they obligatorilyform a separate prosodic phrase, and the presence of accent is the consequence of phrasing. Thisview makes a lot of sense, but I prefer to talk in terms of distribution of secondary accents becauseof the noted dependency of secondary accents on the global characteristics of the utterance.

7For instance, Marina in (3) is a given, highly activated continuing topic, not contrastive (thesentence was read in the context of the question What did Marina do last night after dinner?). It isnevertheless realised with a very high rising accent by the speaker in figure 1, which arguably has todo with the requirements of the overall intonation pattern ending in (!)HL*.

8


9/27

2.1 Focus

Word order: The focus of this section will be on the distinction between broadand narrow focus and the way it is signalled (or not) by the constituent order ofsentences. According to the standard view, Slavic languages have an underlyingcanonical (neutral, basic) word order determined by syntax, whereas the full varietyof observed word orders is derived from the basic one by means of movement oper-ations that are triggered by information-structural features of syntactic constituents.It is generally acknowledged that (even if not sufficiently well studied how) wordorder interacts with intonation in the expression of information structure, i.e. thesetwo phenomena cannot be studied independently. The most common assumptionis that broad/narrow focus ambiguity is only present in sentences that combineneutral word order with neutral intonation (cf. section 1). Virtually all Slavic lan-

guages are standardly assumed to have the SVO basic word order (Siewierska andUhlrov, 1998).8 In combination with a rule like NSR (2) or the more traditionalnotion of the neutral intonation discussed in section 1, according to which thefocus exponent the last word of the sentence, this implies prosodic prominence onthe object under broad focus. For instance, the following sentence in BCS can bean answer to questions What happened? (all-focus), What did Jelena do? (VPfocus) andWhat did Jelena buy?(narrow focus on the object), cf. Godjevac (2006,p. 113?).

(11) JelenaJelena:NOM

jeAUX

kupilabuy:PAST

KOMPJUTER

computer:ACCBCS

Another order that is said to have all-focus interpretations is VSO, which comesin two varieties. In South and West Slavic languages (BCS, Bulgarian, Slove-nian, Czech, Slovak, see Rivero, 1991, 1994) verb-initial structures can arise dueto movement of a non-finite form of the lexical verb to clause-initial position tosupport the second position clitics. This movement (often referred to as the longhead movement, LHM) has been studied in sentences with null subjects, whereit is more or less obligatory. However, it is also possible with overt subjects, ase.g. Wilder and Cavar (1994, pp. 5, 20) observe for Bulgarian and BCS. Godje-vac (2006, p. 113) claims that resulting VSO structures in BCS (12) show the samebroad/narrow focus ambiguity as SVO (11), and can answer both What happened?,What did Jelena do?and What did Jelena buy? type questions.

(12) Kupilabuy:PAST

jeAUX

JelenaJelena:NO M

KOMPJUTER

computer:ACCBCS

Another kind of broad focus VSO is found in Russian and has recently been dis-cussed under the label ofnarrative inversion (Dyakonova, 2009). It is characterised

8With the exception of Upper and Lower Sorbian, which have basic SOV, presumably under theinfluence of German.

9


10/27

by the movement of the finite verb to the left periphery of the clause,9 and only

occurs in narrative discourse. This order has been claimed to recede in Russian,reflecting an older grammatical system and an older narrative style that survivesmostly in fairy tales (Restan, 1981, Bailyn, 2012, p. 264, fn. 25, p. 337). However,it is also used in conversational narrative (Yokoyama, 1986, pp. 280288?) andespecially in jokes/anecdotes, where it is highly productive, e.g. (13) is a typicalbeginning of a joke in Russian.

(13) Privoditbring:PR S:3SG

muikguy:NOM

domojhome

DEVICU.girl:ACC

Ru

A guy brings a girl to his home.

Zybatow and Junghanns (1998, pp. 4143) argue that in such sentences the verb

raises from the VP and adjoins to TP to mark the situation time as the topic of thesentence (see also Junghanns and Zybatow, 2009, pp. 697698).Other word orders are generally believed to signal narrow focus. One should

distinguish between (at least) two kinds of information-structurally relevant con-stituent reordering. One is when constituents move away from the right peripheryof the clause to evade nuclear accent. A common view is that constituents are re-ordered according to a principle like (14) (as presented by Dyakonova, 2009, p. 55,going back to the works of the Prague School), and then a rule like NSR (2) ap-plies.10 This gives rise to sentences with non-canonical word order, but neutralintonation.

(14) IS Ordering Rule

Topic > (Discourse Neutral Material) > Focus

The following Czech example (from Lenertov and Junghanns, 2006, p. 350)illustrates the result of applying this principle: the narrowly focused subject ap-pears in sentence-final position:

(15) [Talking about situations where somebody names objects.]Tentokrtthis time

vyjmenovvalaname:PS T:SG :FE M

predmetyobjects:ACC

[ jehohis

ENA

wife:NOM]F

CzThis time, hisWIFEnamed the objects.

The other kind of reordering is represented by cases where a constituent movestogether with its nuclear accent. This gives rise to non-neutral intonation pat-terns. The standard view is that sentence-non-final foci are always narrow and/orcontrastive (see e.g. Kondrashova, 1996, Junghanns and Zybatow, 1997, on Rus-

9King (1993) argued that this order is basic in Russian, but see Bailyn (1995, 2012) for extendedcriticism.

10An alternative view: Constituents that otherwise would bear nuclear accent are deaccented dueto givenness or narrow focus (cf. section 1), and move away from the right periphery to create theoptimal order with sentence final accent.

10


11/27

sian; Arnaudova, 2001, on Bulgarian). However, more recent literature discusses a

number of exceptions to this generalisation, in particular, the possibility of broadfocus in O(S)V and (S)OV structures with nuclear accent on O. Lenertov andJunghanns (2006) and Fanselow et al. (2008) show that Czech sentences like (16)can serve as answers toWhat happened?and Whats new?-type, as well as Why?questions. This possibility is largely restricted to sentences with null subjects, butis also available if the subject is contextually or inherently unaccented (e.g. indefi-nite pronouns likenkdosomeone). Fanselow and Lenertov (2011) analyse thisphenomenon as fronting of the focus exponent (i.e. only a subpart of a broad focus)and observe the same phenomenon in Polish, Russian, Slovenian and BCS.

(16) MARTUMartha:ACC

jsemAUX:1SG

potkalameet:PST:SG :FE M

Cz

I met Martha

The ability of fronted accented objects to project focus to the level of the VP is alsoobserved by Dyakonova (2009, pp. 6482) for Russian and by Godjevac (2006) forBCS. Concentrating on sentences with overt subjects, both authors reject the possi-bility of broadest sentence focus for OSV orders, but allow it for SOV. Dyakonovaargues that object preposing to V, which is very common in colloquial Russian, istriggered by D-linking of the object or a bigger constituent, in particular the wholefocused constituent. D-linking is defined as in (17) (Dyakonova, 2009, p. 73, withreference to Pesetsky, 1987) is supposed to be orthogonal to categories of focusand background.

(17) D-linking:A constituent is D-linked if it has been explicitly mentioned in the previousdiscourse, is situationally given by being physically present at the momentof communication, or can be easily inferred from the context by being inthe set relation with some other entity or event figuring in the precedingdiscourse.

However, examples like (18), which is an attested first sentence of a joke (ac-cent marking is mine), shed doubt on this generalisation.11 This is obviously anall-focus sentence (note the narrative inversion) in a null context. It is not clear inwhat sense the direct object or any part of this sentence could be D-linked.

(18) Reildecide:PST:MSC:SG

muikguy:NO M

ENUwife:ACC

ubitkill:IN F

Ru

A guy decided to kill his wife.http://joyreactor.cc/post/332475, last accessed on 2012-12-19

11The accented object is preposed to an infinitival head here, but there is no reason to assumedifferent basic orders for infinitival vs. finite VPs (see e.g. Bailyn, 2012). That is, object preposingto the finite verb studied by Dyakonova (2009) and example (18) are probably manifestations of thesame phenomenon.

11


12/27

In this light, it is worth investigating the hypothesis that Dyakonovas object

preposing is related to Lenertov and colleagues movement of the focus exponent.Another possible approach is to assume that the basic order of V and O is notspecified as long as the nuclear accent remains on O. This view is consistent withsome ideas circulating in Russian linguistics (Kodzasov, 1996, p. 183184), aswell as with what we know about SOV languages like German, where accent onO projects broad focus regardless of whether the clause shows the base-generatedSOV or the derived SVO. Slioussar (2007, pp. 188191) suggests that colloquialRussian is developing into an SOV basic word order language, which would implythat VO and OV basic orders co-exist in the current stage of Russian.

Clefts: Cleft constructions express an information-structural partition, typicallya partition into background and focus, of what is underlyingly a single predica-tion, by realising the background and the focus part of that predication as twoclauses. Usually, the focus is realised in a main clause, whereas the background ina subordinate relative clause, and the construction expresses identificational, or ex-haustive, focus. Cleft constructions in Slavic languages are not very well studied.Close counterparts of English it-clefts have been reported in Bulgarian and Czech(Reeve, 2012, p. 167):

(19) Tothat

beewas

MariaMaria

kojatowho

IvanIvan

vidjasaw

Bg

It was Maria that Ivan saw.

The so called to-cleft construction in Russian (20) has the same function of ex-pressing identificational focus (King, 1993). However, its clefthood, i.e. its bi-clausal analysis is much debated (Junghanns, 1997; Reeve, 2008, 2012; but seeMarkman, 2008 for a biclausal view). For one thing, the construction involves norelative clause in the standard sense. The demonstrative pronoun tois followedby what superficially is a full main clause, where the focused constituent is oftenfronted and immediately follows the demonstrative (but even that is not generallyrequired). The construction also exists in other Slavic languages (with the demon-strative to rather than to), for instance in BCS (Reeve, 2008, 2012) and Polish(Tabakowska, 1989). See also Progovac (1998), Paducheva (1980) and Kimmel-man (2009) on the semantics of this construction.

(20) tothisVODKUvodka:ACC IvanIvan:NO M vypildrink:PERF:PAST Ru

It was the vodka that Ivan drank.

Finally, one should mention wh-clefts, like the Russian (21). In contrast toEnglishwh-clefts, focus in (21) is not identificational, but scalar: Oleg is the oneof whom it is least justified to doubt that he works (properly, hard, etc.). Slavicwh-clefts have hardly been investigated so far.

12


13/27

(21) U

PRT

kto

who

rabotaet

works

tak

so

to

this

OLEG

Oleg

Ru

Oleg works if anyone.

2.2 Background, given, topic, and delimitation

Ellipsis: Ellipsis is essentially a process of deletion of material that is back-grounded (not focused) and given (highly activated in the common ground), seeWinkler (this volume). The information-structural function of ellipsis specificallyin Slavic languages has received little attention as a research issue in its own right,but at first glance it does not seem very different from that in other languages.Syntactic constraints on ellipsis are much better studied (see e.g. a comprehensivestudy by McShane, 2005, on Russian and Polish).

Word order: Constituents referred to in various terminological traditions as top-ics and themes tend to appear leftward of their canonical position. What ismeant by topic or theme is not always an aboutness topic, but can be a delimi-tation phrase, as well as a given or a background constituent. In Slavic languages,one can distinguish between several types of such leftward movement according tothe landing site of the constituent, the presence vs. absence, and kind of resumptiveelement, as well as the degree of syntactic integration of the topic in the clause.

Middle (object) scrambling(Mykhaylyk, 2011), or middle-field topicalisation(Bailyn, 2012) is movement of a constituent canonically realised after the verb(esp. the direct object) to a position before the verb but after the subject (SVO

SOV). According to Mykhaylyk (2011), in Ukrainian, an object has to be definite,specific indefinite or member of a contextually evoked set in order to undergo suchmovement, cf. (22), nuclear accent marking is mine. This is also a typical positionfor pronominal objects in both Ukrainian and Russian.12

(22) a. Divcynkagirl

dvicitwice

kynulathrew

MJACY K.ball

Uk

The girl threw a(ny)/the/a certain ball twice.b. Divcynka

girldvicitwice

mjacykball

KYNULA.threw

The girl threw the/a certain ball twice.

Mykhaylyk (2011) only considers word order permutations under preservation ofthe neutral intonation, i.e. with the final position of the nuclear accent, whichmeans that the object loses nuclear accent by moving to the left of the verb. Thiscould also be seen as another instance of givenness-driven deaccentuation followed

12West and South Slavic languages have elaborate systems of pronominal clitics whose orderingwith respect to each other and other elements in the clause obeys its own laws driven by grammarrather than information structure (see esp. Franks and King, 2000, and section 3 below). In EastSlavic languages such as Russian and Ukrainian, positioning of pronominal objects is more flexibleand resembles that of given/topical full DPs.

13


14/27

by word order optimisation so as to realise the nuclear accent in sentence-final

position.(Left-Edge) Topicalisationis movement of a constituent to the left periphery ofthe clause (without resumptive elements), present probably in all Slavic languages.Topicalisation can affect continuing aboutness topics (topics that have already beenestablished as topics in the previous context), new or shifted topics, contrastive top-ics, as in (23) from Arnaudova (2005, p. 16), as well as non-topical delimitationphrases. The question whether all these functions can/must be expressed by top-icalisation in all Slavic languages is largely open since much of related previouswork did not sufficiently differentiate between these notions.

(23) apkahat

kupibought

Marija,Marija

aand

cantabag

(kupi)bought

Milena.Milena

Bg

Marija bought a hat, and Milena bought a bag

Resumptive left dislocationis a cover term I would use to refer to fronting withresumptive elements, where the fronted constituent is integrated in the syntacticstructure of the clause. The resumptive element can have different forms: a cliticpersonal pronoun as in Bulgarian and Macedonian (hence the more broadly famil-iar termsclitic left dislocationandclitic doubling), cf. (24) from Arnaudova (2005,p. 18, see also Kochovska, 2010, on Macedonian); or a non-clitic demonstrative asin Czech, cf. (25) from Sturgeon (2008, p. 81). Resumptive left dislocation usuallyrequires case matching between the dislocated DP and the resumptive pronoun.

(24) Knigite

the.books

Ivan

Ivan

vcera

yesterday

gi

them:ACC

vrna.

returned

Bg

Ivan returned the books yesterday.

(25) Tuthat:ACC

taku,bag:ACC

tuthat:ACC

sREFL

koupilabought

Hana.Hana:NOM

Cz

That bag, Hana bought it [and that wallet, Jana bought it.]

Finally,hanging topics(alsoexternal topicsin Zybatow and Junghanns, 1998,Junghanns and Zybatow, 2009, and, somewhat misleadingly, left dislocation inBailyn, 2012) are constituents left-adjoined to a clause and external to it. In Slaviclanguages they usually require a coreferential resumptive element inside the clause.In contrast to resumptive left dislocation, hanging topics do not require case match-ing (and have a number of other distinctive properties, see e.g. Krapova and Cinque,2008 on Bulgarian clitic left dislocation vs. hanging topic left dislocation).

(26) Anicka?Anicka:NO M

Tthat:DAT

seREFL

nicnothing:NO M

nestalo.not.happened

Cz

Anicka? Nothing happened to her.

Concerning functional distinctions between different kinds of leftward movement,Arnaudova (2005) argues that topicalisation in Bulgarian expresses contrastivetopic in, roughly, Brings (2003) sense, which corresponds to Krifkas (2008)

14


15/27

delimitation, i.e. the most appropriate context for (23) is answering the subques-

tionsWho bought a hat?,Who bought a bag?of a question like Who bought what?In contrast, (24) is a natural answer to a question like What happened?with salientIvan and books. Arnaudova points out that the fronted constituent in resumptiveleft dislocation must be specific, generic or referential, which are the standard re-strictions on aboutness topics (Reinhart, 1981). Czech draws the line differently.According to Sturgeon (2008), resumptive left dislocation signals delimitation, i.e.(25) in Czech appears in the same type of context as (23) in Bulgarian, whereashanging topics like (26) express what Sturgeon calls topic promotion(followingGregory and Michaelis, 2001), i.e. a familiar discourse referent that was not top-ical in the previous context becomes the aboutness topic of the current and thesubsequent sentences.

A special variety of fronting with a resumptive element is predicate frontingwith doubling, aliaspredicate cleft, best described in Russian (Paillard and Plung-

jan, 1993; Abels, 2001; McCoy, 2002; Aboh and Dyakonova, 2009) and Polish(Bondaruk, 2009, to appear), but possibly available in some other Slavic languages.The construction involves V- or VP-fronting leaving behind an overt copy of theverb. Normally, the fronted copy of the verb is infinitival, whereas the lower copyis finite:

(27) Wypicdrink:IN F

HERBAT E

tea(to)PRT

MarekMarek

WYPIJE,will.drink

alebut

nienot

wypijewill.drink

kawy.coffee

Pl

As for drinking tea, Mark will drink it, but will not drink coffee.The fronted VP is usually characterised as (Bring-style) contrastive topic, whichcorresponds to delimitation in our terminology: (27) realises the discourse strategyWill Marek drink tea?, Will Marek drink coffee?, etc. (see Abels, 2001). Interest-ingly, this construction shows a strong tendency (if no categorical requirement) forpolarity focus(Dyakonova, 2009, p. 62), so the fronted verb copy realises the de-limitation function of the VP, whereas the lower finite copy serves as the polarityfocus exponent. This is probably the reason why the whole propositional contentof such sentences normally has to be given (Bondaruk, 2009), with only the truthvalue being the issue under discussion.

3 Full forms, clitics, and zeroes

South and West Slavic languages with the exception of Sorbian (a) are strong pro-drop languages; and (b) possess elaborate systems of auxiliary and pronominalclitics (Franks and King, 2000; Franks, 2005). Pronominal clitics are available inthe accusative, dative, and often also genitive and are paralleled by segmentally

15


16/27

distinct full pronoun forms.13 In this section, I give a brief survey of how the

pro-drop property and the clitic systems of these languages interact with IS.When a discourse referent is given and highly activated in the common ground,it will normally be realised as zero (if it is a subject) or as a clitic pronoun. Overtnominative pronouns and full forms of other pronouns will be used only if theyoccur in a position or carry a function that requires a certain degree of prosodicprominence. This includes, in particular, the cases where the pronoun is focused oris the contrastive topic (or delimitation phrase). In the Slovenian example below,the full pronounnjgais required for the realisation of the nuclear stress, which inturn unambiguously indicates narrow focus on the pronoun.

(28) a. [ Vsakevery

tedenweek

gahim:CL

OBISKUJEM.visit.1SG

]F Sln

I visit him every weekb. Vsak

everytedenweek

obiskujemvisit.1SG

[ NJGA.him:FULL

]F

I visitH IM every week

Another place where IS interacts with Slavic clitic systems in interesting andintricate ways is the phenomenon of polarity focus, including both positive polarity,or verum focus, and narrow focus on the negation. According to the pattern familiarfrom Germanic languages, one expects negative polarity focus to be realised asnuclear accent on the negative particle, whereas verum focus typically surfaces asnuclear accent on the finite verb, i.e. in analytic forms it is the finite auxiliary ratherthan the main verb (Hhle, 1992; Lohnstein, this volume). However, the negative

particle is a clitic or a bound morpheme in all Slavic languages, whereas most ofthe finite auxiliaries are clitics everywhere except the East Slavic, which meansthat these elements cannot form independent prosodic domains and normally donot bear stress.14 Different Slavic languages resolve this conflict in different andsometimes quite unexpected ways.

Focus on the negation can be realised as accent on the finite verb (main orauxiliary) if the finite verb is not a clitic (e.g. in Russian). More generally, it canbe realised on the word that normally bears stress under negation. For instance,in Bulgarian, stress is realised on whatever happens to immediately follow thenegative particle (Franks and King, 2000). If negation is followed by, for instance,a pronominal clitic as in (29), the latter is stressed and will serve as the negative

polarity focus exponent.13The pro-drop characteristic of East Slavic languages (Russian) is debated, and even if these

languages are to be considered pro-drop, the contextual conditions under which null subjects areappropriate are much more restricted than in West and South Slavic languages (Lindseth, 1998).East Slavic languages have also lost their auxiliary and pronominal clitics (Zalizniak, 2008).

14Of course, unstressed morphs can sometimes be accented precisely for the purposes of focusing,as in the famous example: This wine was not exported, it was DEported. However, at least in the caseof Slavic clitics, this is perhaps a possible, but not the most common or unmarked way of expressingnarrow focus. As in the wine example, it seems to focus the expression rather than its content.

16


17/27

(29) [A truck came around the corner.]

MarinM. goit VIDJA,saw nobut LjudmilL. nenot GOit vidjasaw BgMarin saw it, but Ludmil DIDNTsee it.

Verum focus can be realised as accent on a non-finite form of the main verb if thefinite auxiliary is a clitic, e.g. in Czech:

(30) A: Everyone is running around you as if youve just won a millionpounds.

B: Alebut

ji

jsemAUX :1SG

prvejust

VYHRLA

win:PRTC:FE M:SGmilionmillion

liber.pounds

CzBut IHAVEjust won a million pounds.

This is different in BCS and Slovenian, where the non-finite main verb usuallydoes not take over the role of the polarity focus exponent. BCS has a completeparadigm of segmentally distinct clitic and full forms of auxiliary verbs and thecopula. Just like narrow focus on pronouns, verum focus will require the use of anon-clitic auxiliary or copula instead of the clitic (Ivic, 2004):

(31) Onhe

jeis:CL

direktor.director

BCS

He is the director.

(32) A: Everyone is rushing around him as if he is the director, [...]

B: OnheJESTEis:FULL direktor.director BCS

HeI Sthe director.

Finally, Slovenian presents the most fascinating case: Polarity focus is realisedas accent on the rightmost clitic in the clitic cluster, which can be the negation, afinite auxiliary, or even a pronominal clitic, if no other clitic follows it (see Priestly,1993; Franks and King, 2000; Dvork, 2003; Dvork and Gergel, 2004).

(33) Vsakevery

tedenweek

GA

him:CLobiskujem.visit.1SG

Sln

ID Ovisit him every week.

Crucially, it is accent on the pronominal clitic, e.g. ga in (33), that expressesverum focus, rather than replacement by a non-clitic pronoun, e.g. njgain (28-b),which expresses narrow focus on the pronoun (see discussion above). Furthermore,Slovenian clitics are famous for their ability to get stranded under VP ellipsis, andto be used as short answers to yes/no-questions (see Priestly, 1993; Franks andKing, 2000; Dvork, 2003; Dvork and Gergel, 2004). The possibility to realiseverum focus as accent on a pronominal clitic in Slovenian is typologically rare.

17


18/27

4 Particles

Slavic languages possess a wealth of particles, among which most major kinds offocus-sensitive particles and topic particles are represented. The phenomenon ofsemantic split between stressed and unstressed variants of the same particle isalso found in Slavic. This section gives several examples of IS-sensitive behaviourof Slavic particles.

Association with focus: The standard classes of focus particles include exclusiveparticles like the English only, just, ormerely(Ru: tolko, li; Pl: tylko, dopiero;BCS:samo), identificational particles like English exactlyor German geradeandeben(BCS: ba; Bg, Ru: imenno), plain additive particles such as alsoand too(Ru: take; Cz: tak; BCS:tako de(r)), as well as scalar additive particles likeeven(Ru: dae; Pl: nawet; BCS: cak, makar), cf. Knig (1991). The particleifunctionsin most Slavic languages as a general additive operator covering both scalar andnon-scalar uses (Gast and van der Auwera, 2011).

An interesting and so far less well studied kind of focus particle is repre-sented by the Polish, Czech, Slovak and Russian a(az) and Bulgarian cak, whichcan be translated into English both as even and only, depending on the context(Tomaszewicz, 2013). These particles are scalar, but unlikeeventhey are not addi-tive:

(34) MariaM.

rozmawiaatalked

azaz

zwith

menedzerem,manager

Pl

alebut nienot rozmawiaatalked zwith nikimno innym.other

Maria (# even) talked to no less than the manager, but she didnt talk toanybody else.

Moreover, the direction of the scale that these particles operate on does not seemto be determined by probability or relevance of the message as a whole (as witheven), but by the semantic nature of the focused term, e.g. rank from low to high,amount from small to large; distance from short to long, time from early to late, etc.Whena/ cakoperates on a temporal scale, it contributes a reading better expressedin English by only, as in Why are you telling me this cak(only, not earlier than)now?. Tomaszewicz (2013) argues for an analysis of a/ cakas an opposite ofonlythat excludes alternatives located lower (rather than higher) than the assertedalternative on the relevant scale.

Concerning the syntax of focus particles, there is a lot of variation within andbetween Slavic languages in the kind of syntactic relationship between particlesand their foci. Some particles tend to take syntactic positions of VP adverbialsand onlyassociatewith focus, others must be directly adjacent to the focused con-stituent, which is often analysed in terms of adjunction at the constituent level (see

18


19/27

e.g. Baszczak, 2001, on constituent negation in Polish).15

(35) OlegO.

poznakomilacquainted

RomanaR.

sowith

svoimihis

druzjamifriends

Ru

a. Onhe

takealso


egohim

(?take)also

[ swith

LenojL.

]F

b. Onhe

(*i)also


egohim

ialso

[ swith

LenojL.

]F

Oleg introduced Roman to his friends.He also introduced him to Lena.

Association with contrastive topic: The distinction between stressed and un-

stressed additive particles manifests itself in Slavic languages in the way familiarfrom Englishalsoand German auch. Unstressed additive particles associate withfocus and usually precede it; under stress they associate with contrastive topic andfollow it (Krifka, 1999). Sometimes there are distinct particles that only associatewith topic and are always stressed, or only associate with focus and are alwaysunstressed. The opposition between Russian takeand toeis commonly charac-terised in these terms (Gundel, 1975; Paducheva, 1977; Girke, 1981), takebeingthe rough equivalent of the German unstressed auch, and toethat of the stressedAUCH. This picture is adequate as long as we restrict our attention to discourses ofmore or less informal register. However, a broader look reveals that takealso hasstressed uses in which it associates with the contrastive topic.

(36) [V]seall

molcali.were silent

TumaT.

TAKEalso

molcal...was silent

16 Ru

Everyone was silent. T. was ALSOsilent.

On the other hand, the particle iis a much better instance of a pure association-with-focus additive. As a proclitic, it is never stressed and always precedes thefocus, cf. (35-b). In other words, the Russian system of additive particles has onethat associates with contrastive topic (toe), one that associates with focus (i) andone that goes both ways (take).

15To the extent that (constituent) negation can be considered a focus particle, it shows a similarkind of variation across Slavic languages. For instance, in Russian direct attachment to the focused

constituent is the only possibility, BCS prefers canonical position before the verb (Brown and Alt,2004, p. 69), whereas e.g. Polish has both options (Baszczak, 2001).

(i) a. SlavkoS.

nenot

vidisees

(?ne)not

[ OlguO.

]F negobut

Mariju.M.

BCS

b. SlavaS.

(*ne)not

viditsees

nenot

[ Olgu,O.

]F abut

Mariju.M.

Ru

S. doesnt see Olga, but Maria.

16From Vasil Bykov, Boloto (2001), Russian National Corpus. Accent marking is mine.

19


20/27

Markers of contrast and delimitation: The last group of particles that we will

briefly discuss could be roughly described as markers of contrastive topic. In fact,it would be more correct to say that these particles mark various kinds of contrast,which can go together with a more or less strong requirement of the presence ofcontrastive topic (or more generally, a delimitation phrase).

First of all one should mention Slavic conjunction systems. Where Englishmakes a two-way distinction between connectives andand but, most Slavic lan-guages (one known exception is Czech) have three, four or even five connectives,which in addition to their basic function of logical conjunction, encode differ-ent pragmatic restrictions on the relationship between their conjuncts. Leavingaside corrective conjunctions (that correspond to the Germansondernor the Span-ish sino), the following three functions usually have distinct encoding in Slavic:(a) general phrasal coordination and non-contrastive clausal coordination (Ru, Uk,Pl, Bg, BCS:i; Sln: in); (b) opposition, contrastive comparison, weak or mildcontrast (Ru, Uk, Pl, Bg, BCS: a; Sln: pa); (c) counterargument, denial of expec-tation, or strong contrast (Ru, Bg: no; Uk, Pl: ale; BCS, Sln: ali), see e.g. Mauri(2008). From the point of view of IS the most interesting distinction is between (a)and (b). Jasinskaja and Zeevat (2008, 2009) argue (with reference to Russian) thatthis distinction is best characterised in terms of types of questions under discussionanswered by the conjuncts. The conjuncts ofimust give distinct answers to a ques-tion with a single wh-variable, e.g.: What is the weather like? It is snowing and(Ru: i)the wind is blowing. In contrast, the conjuncts ofa answer questions withmultiple variables, e.g.: Who likes what? John likes football, and/but(Ru: a)Billlikes basketball.17 Each conjunct, in turn, can be seen as an answer to a subques-

tion: What does John like?, What does Bill like?, etc., where one of the variables(who?) of the multiple-variable question is instantiated to elements of the contex-tually relevant domain (John, Bill). In other words, conjunctionais systematicallyused in contexts which also license contrastive topics (Bring, 2003) and delim-itation phrases (Krifka, 2008). Since contrastive topics and delimitation phrasestend to move to the left periphery of the clause (cf. section 2.2), conjunction aisnormally immediately followed by such a phrase.18 Conversely, if a delimitationphrase is present, conjunction icannot be used, so iturns out to function as a nega-tive cue to delimitation in Russian. Other Slavic languages show roughly the samedistribution, though minor differences also exist.

Further examples of Russian contrastive topic particles areeandto. In one of

its uses, eis interchangeable with a, except it sounds more bookish (Paducheva,17It is enough for the conjuncts to be just different along at least two dimensions (John =Bill,

football= basketball) for the conditions for mild contrast to be met. There may but need not beany kind of antonymy or incompatibility relation between the contrasted terms.

18There are a number of exceptions to this generalisation. As I argued in Jasinskaja (2010), whenone of the variables of the question is a polarity variable and that variable is instantiated in the sub-question, delimitation need not and sometimes cannot be expressed overtly. This situation arisesmainly in corrective uses, and a small subset of mirative argumentative uses (cf. Kreidlin and Pa-ducheva, 1974; Jasinskaja and Zeevat, 2008). For the rest, conjunctionashows a strong tendency toco-occur with contrastive topic or delimitation.

20


21/27

1988). In contrast to a, eis a second position clitic that follows the first phono-

logical word of the clause. Since contrastive topics always appear clause-initiallyin sentences with e, the particle follows the first phonological word of the topicconstituent. The analysis of the particle to given by McCoy (2001) is virtually iden-tical to Jasinskaja and Zeevats analysis ofa: it is a marker of discourse strategydominated by a question with two variables and split into single-variable subques-tions.19 In addition, McCoy characterises to as a marker of known but not nec-essarily activated information. More specifically, to can indicate that the questionunder discussion is somehow familiar to the communication participants, i.e. that ithas been or should have been raised before. The position oftoin a clause is ratherflexible. It will encliticise to the contrastive topic or the delimitation phrase regard-less of the position of the latter. Toalso functions as a topic/delimitation particle inPolish (Tabakowska, 1989). Interestingly, the clitic to in Czech is a focus particle(imk, 2009). However, there seems to exist a certain overlap in the function ofparticle toin Russian and Polish, and the resumptive pronoun ten, ta, tothat inCzech left dislocation structures such as (25). It is possible that the Russian and thePolish particle are historically related to resumptive pronouns in left dislocation.

5 Concluding remarks

It is impossible to draw conclusions from a collection of facts that only tries tobe systematic. The goal of this chapter was to give a survey, as comprehensive aspossible, of phenomena in Slavic languages relevant to the study of IS. The bigpicture behind this variety of facts should still emerge. This overview also revealsa number of obvious gaps in IS research on Slavic languages. Firstly, it is clear thatdifferent Slavic languages have been researched to a very different extent. WhereasRussian is by far the best studied language, followed by Czech, Polish, BCS andBulgarian, by comparison, almost nothing is known about IS in e.g. Slovenian orSorbian. It is true that Slavic languages have a lot in common and we are likely torediscover familiar patterns. However, the unique properties of these lesser studiedlanguages are a likely source for new findings, e.g. the unusual clitic behaviourin Slovenian, or the situation of contact with German in the case of Sorbian. Thestudy of Slavic IS would also profit from comparative research with reference tonon-Slavic languages. Especially the study of intonation has been too isolatedwithin the local academic traditions. In sum, there is still a lot to be done, and

there is hope that this survey will instigate new research in this area.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank everyone who helped me make way in the intricacies of Slavicinformation structure, especially Anna Bondaruk, Botjan Dvork, Uwe Jung-

19McCoy (2001) formulates her theory in terms of sets and sets of sets of propositions, but thinkingof questions as sets of propositions, that is equivalent to our formulation in terms of questions.

21


22/27

hanns, Elena Karagjosova, Vadim Kimmelman, Anna Lobanova, Ora Matushan-

sky, Anna Piltov, Radek Simk, and Luka Szucsich. This paper was written withthe support of the German Science Foundation (DFG, grant number BE 4348/2-1).

References

Abels, K., 2001. The predicate cleft construction in Russian. In: Franks, S., Hol-loway King, T., Yadroff, M. (Eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics.Michigan Slavic Publications, Ann Arbor, pp. 118.

Aboh, E. O., Dyakonova, M., 2009. Predicate doubling and parallel chains. Lingua119 (7), 10351065.

Adamec, P., 1966. Porjadok slov v sovremennom russkom jazyke. Academia.

Alter, K., 1997. Fokusprosodie im Russischen: Phonologische und akustische Ko-rrelate von Informationsstrukturierung. In: Junghanns, U., Zybatow, G. (Eds.),Formale Slavistik. Vervuert, Frankfurt a. M., pp. 399414.

Arnaudova, O., 2001. Prosodic movement and information focus in Bulgarian. In:Franks, S., Holloway King, T., Yadroff, M. (Eds.), Formal Approaches to SlavicLinguistics 9. Michigan Slavic Publications, Ann Arbor, pp. 1937.

Arnaudova, O., 2005. Contrastive features, clitic doubling and the left peripheryof the Bulgarian clause. In: Franks, S. (Ed.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Lin-gusitics 13, The South Carolina Meeting 2004. Michigan Slavic Publications,Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp. 1326.

Asher, N., Lascarides, A., 2003. Logics of Conversation. Studies in Natural Lan-guage Processing. Cambridge University Press.

Bailyn, J. F., 1995. A configurational approach to Russian free word order. Ph.D.thesis, Cornell University.

Bailyn, J. F., 2012. The Syntax of Russian. Cambridge University Press.Baszczak, J., 2001. Investigation into the Interaction between the Indefinites and

Negation. Akademie Verlag.Bolinger, D., 1978. Intonation across languages. In: Greenberg, J. H. (Ed.), Uni-

versals of Human Language. Vol. 2. Phonology. Stanford University Press, Stan-ford, pp. 471524.

Bondaruk, A., 2009. Constraints on predicate clefting in Polish. In: Zybatow et al.(2009), pp. 6578.

Bondaruk, A., to appear. Copy deletion in Polish predicate clefting, ms., John Paul

II Catholic University of Lublin.Bokovic, ., 2009. Scrambling. In: Kempgen et al. (2009), pp. 714725.Brown, W., Alt, T., 2004. A Handbook of Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian. Slavic

and East European Language Research Center, Durham, NC.Bryzgunova, E. A., 1980. Intonacija. In: vedova, N. J. (Ed.), Russkaja gram-

matika. Tom 1. Nauka, Moskva.Bring, D., 2003. On D-trees, beans and B-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy 26,

511545.

22


23/27

Chomsky, N., Halle, M., 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. Harper and Row,

New York.Dane, F., 1960. Sentence intonation from a functional point of view. Word 16 (1),3454.

Dvork, B., 2003. Elliptische Prdikatisierung enklitischer Personalpronomina imSlowenischen. Philologie im Netz 26, 3761.

Dvork, B., Gergel, R., 2004. Slovenian clitics: VP ellipsis in yes/no questions andbeyond. In: Comorovski, I., Krifka, M. (Eds.), Proceedings: Workshop on theSyntax, Semantics and Pragmatics of Questions. pp. 8591.

Dyakonova, M., 2009. A phase-based approach to Russian free word order. Ph.D.thesis, University of Amsterdam.

Fanselow, G., Lenertov, D., 2011. Left peripheral focus: Mismatches betweensyntax and information structure. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29 (1),169209.

Fanselow, G., Lenertov, D., Weskott, T., 2008. Studies on the acceptability ofobject movement to Spec, CP. In: Steube, A. (Ed.), The Discourse Potential ofUnderspecified Structures. Vol. 8. De Gruyter, pp. 413438.

Firbas, J., 1992. Functional sentence perspective in written and spoken communi-cation. Cambridge University Press.

Franks, S., 2005. Slavic languages. In: Cinque, G., Kayne, R. S. (Eds.), Handbookof Comparative Syntax. Oxford University Press, pp. 373419.

Franks, S., King, T. H., 2000. A Handbook of Slavic Clitics. Oxford UniversityPress.

Gast, V., van der Auwera, J., 2011. Scalar additive operators in the languages of

Europe. Language 87 (1), 254.Girke, W., 1981. Zur Funktion von i, takeund toe. In: Hill, P., Lehmann, V.

(Eds.), Slavistische Linguistik 1980. Mnchen, pp. 726.Godjevac, S., 2006. Focus Projection in Serbo-Croatian. CSLI Publications.Gregory, M. L., Michaelis, L. A., 2001. Topicalization and left-dislocation: A func-

tional opposition revisited. Journal of Pragmatics 33 (11), 16651706.Gundel, J. K., 1975. Topic-comment structure and the use of toeand take. The

Slavic and East European Journal 19 (2), 174181.Hhle, T., 1992. ber Verum-Fokus im Deutschen. In: Jacobs, J. (Ed.), Informa-

tionsstruktur und Grammatik. Westdeutscher Verlag, pp. 112142.Ivic, M., 2004. The notion verum focusand its signalization in contemporary stan-

dard Serbian. Na jezik 35, 15.Jasinskaja, K., 2010. Corrective contrast in Russian, in contrast. Oslo Studies inLanguage 2 (2), 433466, special Issue: Atle Grnn and Irena Marijanovic (eds.)Russian in Contrast.

Jasinskaja, K., Zeevat, H., 2008. Explaining additive, adversative and contrastmarking in Russian and English. Revue de Smantique et Pragmatique 24, 6591.

Jasinskaja, K., Zeevat, H., 2009. Explaining conjunction systems: Russian, En-glish, German. In: Riester, A., Solstad, T. (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Be-

23


24/27

deutung 13. Vol. 5 of SinSpeC. Working Papers of the SFB 732. University of

Stuttgart.Junghanns, U., 1997. On the so-called to-cleft construction. In: Lindseth, M.,Franks, S. (Eds.), Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguis-tics. The Indiana Meeting of 1996. Michigan Slavic Publications, Ann Arbor,pp. 166190.

Junghanns, U., Zybatow, G., 1997. Syntax and information structure of russianclauses. In: et al. Browne, E. W. (Ed.), Annual Workshop on Formal Approachesto Slavic Linguistics. The Cornell Meeting 1995. Michigan Slavic Publications.Michigan, pp. 289319.

Junghanns, U., Zybatow, G., 2009. Grammatik und Informationsstruktur. In:Kempgen et al. (2009), pp. 684707.

Jurgec, P., 2007. Acoustic analysis of lexical tones in contemporary standard Slove-nian. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences.pp. 10891092.

Kallestinova, E. D., 2007. Aspects of word order in Russian. Ph.D. thesis, Univer-sity of Iowa.

Kehler, A., 2002. Coherence, Reference, and the Theory of Grammar. CSLI Publi-cations.

Kempgen, S., Kosta, P., Berger, T., Gutschmidt, K. (Eds.), 2009. Die SlavischenSprachen / The Slavic Languages: Halbband 1. Handbcher zur Sprach- undKommunikationswissenschaft. De Gruyter.

Kimmelman, V., 2009. On the interpretation ofto in so-called to-clefts. In: Zy-batow et al. (2009), pp. 319328.

King, T. H., 1993. Configuring topic and focus in Russian. Ph.D. thesis, StanfordUniversity.

Kochovska, S., 2010. Macedonian direct objects, clitics and the left periphery.Ph.D. thesis, Rutgers University, New Brunswick.

Kodzasov, S. V., 1996. Zakony frazovoj akcentuacii. In: Nikolaeva, T. M. (Ed.),Prosodiceskij stroj russkoj reci. Institut russkogo jazyka Rossijskoj akademiinauk, Moskva, pp. 181204.

Kondrashova, N., 1996. The syntax of existential quantification. Ph.D. thesis, Uni-versity of Wisconsin.

Knig, E., 1991. The meaning of focus particles: A comparative perspective. Rout-ledge.

Kosta, P., Schrcks, L., 2009. Word order in Slavic. In: Kempgen et al. (2009), pp.654684.Krapova, I., Cinque, G., 2008. Clitic reduplication constructions in Bulgarian. In:

Kallulli, D. (Ed.), Clitic doubling in the Balkan languages. John Benjamins Pub-lishing Company, pp. 257286.

Kreidlin, G. E., Paducheva, E. V., 1974. Znacenie i sintaksiceskie svojstva so-juzaa. Naucno-texniceskaja informacija 1974 (9), 3137, ser. 2, Avtomatizacijaobrabotki tekstov.

Krifka, M., 1999. Additive particles under stress. In: Proceedings of SALT 8. pp.

24


25/27

111128.

Krifka, M., 2008. Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungar-ica 55 (3), 243276.Ladd, D. R., 1996. Intonational Phonology. Cambridge University Press.Lenertov, D., Junghanns, U., 2006. Fronted focus exponents with maximal focus

interpretation in Czech. In: Schwabe, K., Winkler, S. (Eds.), On InformationStructure, Meaning and Form. Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 347363.

Lindseth, M., 1998. Null-subject properties of Slavic languages: with special ref-erence to Russian, Czech and Sorbian. Sagner.

Markman, V. G., 2008. Pronominal copula constructions are what? Reduced spec-ificational pseudo-clefts. In: Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on For-mal Linguistics. Vol. 26.

Mathesius, V., 1932. O poadavku stability ve spisovnm jazyce (Aon the re-quirement of stability for the standard languageAZ). In: Havrnek, B., Wein-gart, M. (Eds.), Spisovn cetina a jazykov kultura. Melantrich, Praha, pp. 1431.

Mauri, C., 2008. Coordination Relations in the Languages of Europe and Beyond.Mouton de Gruyter.

McCoy, S., 2001. Colloquial Russian particles -to, e, and vedas set-generating(AIJkontrastiveAI) markers: A unifying analysis. Ph.D. thesis, University ofNew Hampshire.

McCoy, S., 2002. Semantic and discourse properties of colloquial Russian con-struction of the form X-to X, a.... Glossos 3.

McShane, M. J., 2005. A theory of Ellipsis. Oxford University Press, USA.Mehlhorn, G., 2002. Kontrastierte Konstituenten im Russischen: Experimentelle

Untersuchungen zur Informationsstruktur. Europische Hochschulschriften. Pe-ter Lang.

Mehlhorn, G., Zybatow, G., 2000. Alte und neue Hte der russischen Informa-tionsstruktur. In: Linguistische Arbeitsberichte. Vol. 74. Institut fr Linguistik,Universitt Leipzig.

Meyer, R., Mleinek, I., 2006. How prosody signals force and focusa study ofpitch accents in Russian yes-no questions. Journal of Pragmatics 38 (10), 16151635.

Mykhaylyk, R., 2010. Optional object scrambling in child and adult ukrainian.

Ph.D. thesis, Stony Brook University.Mykhaylyk, R., 2011. Middle object scrambling. Journal of Slavic Linguistics19 (2), 231272.

Paducheva, E. V., 1977. Toei take: vzaimootnoenie aktualnogoclenenija i as-sociativnyx svjazej. Istitut russkogo jazyka AN SSSR. Problemnaja gruppa poksperimentalnoj i prikladnoj lingvistike. Predvaritelnye publikacii (55), 313.

Paducheva, E. V., 1980. Znacenije i sintaksiceskije funkcii slovaeto. In: Problemystrukturnoj lingvistiki. pp. 7691.

Paducheva, E. V., 1988. La particule e: Semantique, syntaxe et prosodie. Les

25


26/27

Particules Enonciatives en Russe Contemporain 3, 1144.

Paillard, D., Plungjan, V. A., 1993. Ob odnom tipe konstrukcij s povtorom glagolav russkom jazyke. Russian Linguistics 17 (3), 263277.Pesetsky, D. M., 1987. Paths and categories. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute

of Technology.Priestly, T. M. S., 1993. Slovene. In: Comrie, B., Corbett, G. G. (Eds.), The

Slavonic Languages. Routledge, pp. 388454.Progovac, L., 1998. Event pronominalto. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 6 (1), 340.Reeve, M., 2008. A pseudo-biclausal analysis of Slavonic clefts. UCL Working

Papers in Linguistics, 6385.Reeve, M., 2012. Clefts and Their Relatives. John Benjamins Publishing Company.Reinhart, T., 1981. Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics.

Philosophica 27, 5394.Restan, P., 1981. The position of the finite verb in some elementary declarative sen-

tences in modern Russian. In: Jacobsen, P., Krag, H. L. (Eds.), The Slavic Verb:An Anthology Presented to Hans Christian Srenson. Rosenkilde and Bagger,Copenhagen, pp. 147160.

Rivero, M.-L., 1991. Long head movement and negation: Serbo-Croatian vs. Slo-vak and Czech. The Linguistic Review 8 (2-4), 319351.

Rivero, M.-L., 1994. Clause structure and V-movement in the languages of theBalkans. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 12 (1), 63120.

Sgall, P., Hajicov, E., Burnov, E., 1980. Aktuln clenen vety v cetine.Academia.

Siewierska, A., Uhlrov, L., 1998. An overview of word order in Slavic languages.

In: Siewierska, A. (Ed.), Constituent order in the languages of Europe. Moutonde Gruyter, pp. 105149.

Slioussar, N., 2007. Grammar and information structure. A study with reference toRussian. Ph.D. thesis, Utrecht University, LOT publications.

Smiljanic, R., Hualde, J. I., 2000. Lexical and pragmatic functions of tonal align-ment in two Serbo-Croatian dialects. In: Okrent, A., Boyle, J. (Eds.), Proceed-ings from the Main Session of the 36th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Lin-guistic Society. Vol. 36. pp. 469482.

Sturgeon, A., 2008. The Left Periphery: The interaction of syntax, pragmatics andprosody in Czech. John Benjamins.

Svetozarova, N., 1998. Intonation in Russian. In: Hirst, D., Di Christo, A. (Eds.),

Intonation Systems: A Survey of Twenty Languages. Cambridge UniversityPress, pp. 261274.Tabakowska, E., 1989. On pragmatic functions of the particle to in Polish. In:

Weydt, H. (Ed.), Sprechen mit Partikeln. Walter de Gruyter, pp. 535545.Tomaszewicz, B., 2013.Az/cakthe scalar opposite of scalaronly. In: Junghanns,

U., Fehrmann, D., Lenertov, D., Pitsch, H. (Eds.), Formal Description of SlavicLanguages: The Ninth Conference. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main [etc.], pp.301324.

Van Gelderen, V., 2003. Scrambling unscrambled. LOT, Utrecht.

26


27/27

imk, R., 2009. The syntax, semantics, and pragmatics of the focus particle to in

Czech. In: Zybatow et al. (2009), pp. 329342.Wilder, C., Cavar, D., 1994. Long head movement? Verb movement and cliticiza-tion in Croatian. Lingua 93 (1), 158.

Yanko, T. E., 2001. Kommunikativnye strategii russkoj reci. Jazyki slavjanskojkultury.

Yokoyama, O. T., 1986. Discourse and Word Order. John Benjamins PublishingCompany.

Yokoyama, O. T., 2001. Neutral and non-neutral intonation in Russian: a reinter-pretation of the IK-system. Die Welt der Slaven 46, 126.

Yokoyama, O. T., 2009a. Discourse, sentence intonation, and word order. In:Kempgen et al. (2009), pp. 707714.

Yokoyama, O. T., 2009b. Sentence and phrase intonation. In: Kempgen et al.(2009), pp. 115128.

Zalizniak, A. A., 2008. Drevnerusskie enklitiki. Jazyki Slavjanskix Kultur,Moskva.

Zybatow, G., Junghanns, U., 1998. Topiks im Russischen. Sprache und Pragmatik47.

Zybatow, G., Junghanns, U., Lenertov, D., Biskup, P. (Eds.), 2009. Studies in For-mal Slavic Phonology, Morphology, Syntax, Semantics and Information Struc-ture: Proceedings of FDSL 7, Leipzig 2007. Peter Lang.

jasinskaja his slavic

Documents