Describing the overt order of words within
a sentence may appear to be a simple matter.
To begin with, a combination of units may permit interruption
by a break of some kind or by units from some other combination;
alternatively the combination will demand contiguity and not tolerate
interruption. Sentences are necessarily contiguous combination
of words (rather than of formatives) within a sentence. Both words
and sentences are, so to say, solid units.
Next, the combination may be thought of
as a permutation with a specified sequence.
A given language may permit any permutation of a given combination
of words into a sentence. The
word order may be free, fluid, with maximal randomness or
entropy, as a mathematician would say, Thus, in Sanskrit with the
combination naraya Nah (male given name) (nominative),
rasam juice (accusative), pibati drinks,
any of the six mathematically possible permutations are permissible.
(1)
(a) nārāya No rasam pibati.
(b)
nārāya Nah$
pibati rasam.
etc.
All of these six mean Narayan drinks juice.
Alternatively, the word order may be fixed, rigid, with minimal
randomness or maximal predictability, thus, in English with a similar
combination, John, juice, drinks only a single permutation
is permissible.
(2)
John drinks juice.
In
between, only some of the permutations may be permissible but not
all. Thus, in Sindhi with combination hU he,
AmbUmango khai eating, tho
is only a subset of seven permutations are permissible out of the
mathematically possible twenty-four.
This is semi-fluid order.
(3)
(a) hU ambU khai tho
(b)
hU AmbU tho khai
(c)
hU khai tho ambU
(d)
hU tho AmbU khai
(e)
AmbU hU khai
(f)
AmbU khai tho hU
(g)
khai
tho
hU AmbU
All
of these mean He is eating a mango.
This account seems to coincide with the
common sense view. But at
once doubts begin to assail us that things are not so simpleespecially
to someone not knowing a language and asking for explicit instructions
on proper word order.
The first question that may strike us is whether the word
and the sentence are the only necessarily contiguous or solid combinations
in an utterance. What about
the phrase? (A phrase built around a finite verb is only a special
case we shall call such phrases clauses.) Some phrases do not appear
to be wholly solid: khai tho in Sindhi seems
to be only partially solid in that it gets interrupted in 3rd. But what about ῑtam rasam cold juice in Sanksrit? At least in highly
literary Sanskrit the combination nārā yaḥ
Nah, ītam,
rasam, pibati appears to be as fluid as the shorter
combination we considered earlier and permit separation of ῑtam
from rasam. But
cold juice in English (possibly juice cold in poetic
diction) and miṭho AmbU sweet
mango in Sindhi are quite solid.
even in Sanskrit clauses will be solid.
(of course phrases within a clause need not be solid and
the order within a clause may be fluid.) The wiser policy seems
to be that we should inquire into the overt order of solid phrases
within a sentence rather than into the order of words with in a
sentence. A good empirical
test for identifying solid phrases may be based on looking for potential
points in a sentence for pauses or for parenthetical insertions.
The second question
concerns the assumption that the combination has a specific grammatical
structure. Think of the
combination in English, a man, a dog, bites. Obviously the two following permutations are far from meaning the
same thing. (Compare example-2 with2.)
(4) (a) A dog bites a man.
(b) A man bites a dog.
Surely this is not to be thought of as
a departure from rigidity in English.
The word order is fixed, but it is also distinctive; thats
all. Actually we are dealing with two different
grammatical combinations of the same grammatical combination.
(5)
(a) a man (subject),
a dog (object), bites
(b) a dog (subject),
a man (object), bites
The English words here do not show overt
formatives (as in Sanskrit) to mark the grammatical functions, thats
all. We are dealing here with the overt order of a combination of
solid phrases that together constitute a grammatical structure (the
covert order, so to say) within a sentence.
The third question concerns the observation
that the various permutations in a non-rigid order (examples 1,3)
mean the same thing (namely, Narayan drinks juice,
He is eating a mango) Now
do they really mean the very same or do they merely mean roughly
the same thing? Obviously the differences between la, lb, etc. or
between 3a, 3b, etc. are negligible meaning differences while the
differences between 4a, 4b are far from negligible, they are major
meaning differences. In
other words, the different formations may weakly or strongly
contrastive. As early as1957, Joos underlined the importance
of this distinction between major and negligible meaning differences
for the purposes of grammatical analysis.
Items 5a, 5b are different grammatical combinations precisely
because they lead to major meaning differences.
The same grammatical combination is said to underlie permutations
in fluid order examples la, lb etc.)
or in semi-fluid order (examples 3a, 3b etc.) precisely because
the resulting mean in differences are negligible.
Consider the following ---
(6)
(a) John is ready.
(b)
Is John ready?
In some sense, the difference between a
statement and a question is a major meaning difference. But what
about the underlying grammatical combination? Is it the same combination,
namely, John, ready, is or are there two different combinations
here? Again, there is some plausibility in saying that there is the same
combination. This seems
to suggest that it will be wiser to recognize that major differences
may be carried by overt order (as in 6) no less than by grammatical
structure (as in 4).
The fourth question concerns the carries
of negligible meaning differences.
We have identified one such carrier, namely, fluidity in
overt order. Whether all mathematically possible permutations are
admissible (example 1) or only a subset of them is admissible (example
3) is not all that important. But there are other carriers too besides overt
order and grammatical structure.
There are special formatives---Hindi has to, nA, hi, bhi
and others; Marathi has tAr, na, aplA, ka, c, hi and
others: German has doch, also auf and others.
We shall call them sentence particles. And of course there are features of sentence accent, sentence
tone, and sentence juncture.
We shall together call such features sentence prosodies. In conclusion, it will note unreasonable to
look for an at least loosely unified system of all these carriesovert
order, sentence particles, sentence prosodies, and certain grammatical
functions that we call sentential functions-conveying a family of
negligible meaning difference, and at least some kind seen in example
6. The different carries often tend to support or even replace one
another.
The fifth and last question concerns the
correlation between the carriers and the meaning differences. It is not enough to say, for example, that in a given language with
a given grammatical structure one meets with some grammatical structure
one meets with some fluidity in overt order.
Thus, in example 3 even A superficial knowledge of fifth
language will reveal that a specific order is the normal, colorless,
unmarked order, the rest being in some sense deviant, colourful,
marked orders. Only a more intimate knowledge of the language
will enable one to sort out which order is associated with which
sentence particles and sentence prosodies and with which specific
color or meaning difference. Only
then the answer to the question, namely, which subset of permutations,
holds any interest for us.
In an earlier presentation (Kelkar 1982),
I offered grounds for recognizing two sets of grammatical functions
at the rank of a sentence in Marathi: (i) a set of dietetic functions,
namely, Agent, Tenant, and Object that are closely associated with
selection of the verbal: (ii) a set of sentential
function, namely, Subject, Substrate, and Theme that in some
ways parallel the dietetic functions but that are distinct from
them: (iii) a set of the
remaining sentential functions, namely, Circumstantial, Manner,
and Verbal. The relevance
of these considerations to the present concerns stem two facts,
namely
(i)
The unmarked overt can be set out in terms of the sentential
functions as follows: Circumstantial, Subject, Substrates,
Theme, Manners, Verbal
(ii)
The marked overt orders can be seen sometimes as the assignment
of given constituents variably to different sentential functions
and sometimes As playing around with the sentential functions themselves.
Some illustrations are called for at this
point.
(7)
cora ni
mitra la
pivi; bAkSis
dili:
theif by friend to bag
gift
gave
Agent Tenant Object Complement verb
Subject Substrate
verbal
the thief gave
the bag to the friend as a present
(8) (a) Cora ni
pivi: mitra la dIli:
thief by bag friend to gave
Subject Theme
Verbal
(b) pivi: cora ni mitra
la dili:
bag
thief by friend to
gave
Subject Substrate Substrate Verbal
(source) (goal)
(9) tikDe cor jhopla
there thief
slept
Circum Subject Verbal
(10) cor tikDe jhopla
thief there
slept
Subject Manner
Verbal
Whether
the thief (the Agent)
is cast in the rle of the Subject (as in 7, 8a) or the source-Substrate
(as in 8b), whether to the friend (the Tenant) is cast in the
role of the Substrate (as in 7, 8b) or as a part of the Verbal Subtle
and therefore negligible difference between The thief gave the
bag to the friend and The thief gave the friend the bag), whether
there is cast in the rle of the Circumstantial (as in 9) or the
Manner (as in 10)all these depend not so much on the facts of the
case but on the way they are construed or interpreted in the speakers
intent.
We
have thus illustrated how the deviant order (examples 8, 10) may
differ from the normal order (respectively examples 7, 9) in the
assignment of certain features of the event or the state of affairs
being presented (the agency of the thief, the object hood of the
bag, the tenancy of the friend, the location of the sleep) to this
or that sentential function.
Now
we shall illustrate the other alternative, namely, the playing around
with the sentential functions themselves.
(11) (a) cora ni mitra la pivi: dili:║
the thief gave the bag to the friend.
(b)
cora ni | mitra la pivi dili:║
(c) cora ni mitra la|
pivi: dili:║
(c)
cora ni mitra la pivi:
| dili:║
Here the overt order (to gather with the
sentential functions) is maintained intact, but the medial sentence
juncture is placed differently in separating the presupposed
background (absent in 1la)) from the offered foreground.
(The placement of the sentence tone and accents also shifts
concurrently. One may observe
in passing that Marathi television news readers tend to make eye
contact with the viewer in uttering the first constituent of the
offered foreground that bears also a sentence accent and the beginning
of the tone nucleus.) Any
global question or negation affects the offered foreground.
(12)
(b)
tyani mitra la | pivi: dili:║
(c)
tyani tyala | pivi: dili:║
(d)
tyani tyala ti| dili:║
One or more elements of the presupposed
background is liable to situation-dependent pronominalization or
even to situation-dependent ellipsis (that is, tyani,
tyala, ti in 12 may be left understood).
In contrast to these modes of de-emphasis, there are modes
of emphasis of different kinds.
Any focal question or negation affects the emphasis-bearing
constituent. Apart from contrastive sentence accents and sentence
particles, departures from the normal covert order of sentential
functions also act as carriers of emphasis. There are four such
departures:
(i)
Front-shift of the emphasized element which is then separated by
a sentence juncture.
(ii)
End-shift of the emphasized element which is then separated by a
sentence juncture.
(iii)
Shift near the Verbal with which the emphasized element forms a
solid constituent.
(iv)
Front-shift of the solid constituent (made up of the emphasized
element and the Verbal ) which is
then separated by a sentence juncture.
Some examples follow. The emphasized element is always chosen from the offered foreground.
(13) (a) cora ni | mitra la pivi dili:║
(b) mitra la | cora ni pivi dili:║
(c)
pivi | cora ni mitra la dili:║
(d)dili:
| cora ni mitra la pivi:║
(14)
(a) mitra la pivi dili:
| cora ni║
(b) cora ni pivi:
dili: | mitra la║
(c)
cora ni mutra la dili: pivi:║
(d) cora ni mitra la
pivi| dili: ║
Note that the front-shift of the normally
first element and the end-shift of the normally last element are
not wholly vacuous (examples 13a, 14d, ) in that sentence prosodies
still mark the shift.
(15) (a) mitra la pivi |cora ni dili: ║
(b) cora ni pivi | mitra la dili:
║
(c) cora ni mitra la| pivi dili: ║
Note
that the shift of the element normally adjacent to the Verbal to
the Verbal-adjacent position is not wholly vacuous (example 15ac)
in that sentence prosodies stil mark the shift.
(16)
(a) cora
ni dili: | mitra la pivi ║
(b) mitra la dili:
| cora ni pivi ║
(c)
pivi dili:|cora ni muitra la║
It will be noticed that
the medial sentence juncture separating the emphasized element chosen
from the offered foreground obliterates the medial juncture separating
the offered for-ground from the presupposed background. Other details
concerning the associated sentence prosodies need to be worked out.
As for the meaning differences
associated with the four kinds of shifts of emphasized element,
only some general observations can be made pending a closer investigation:
(i) This emphasis is contrastive emphasis and should not be
confused with intensive emphasis conveyed in Marathi by drawl accent,
clip accent, and other carriers.
(ii) Front-shift strengthens the foregrounding effect; end-shift
may have the effect of an afterthought. Front-shift is the more frequent; end-shift is the more forceful.
Front-shift is analogous to cleft sentences in English. End-shift
is analogous to pseudo-cleft sentences in English.
(It is the thief that... versus The one who. is the thief)
(iii)
Verbal adjacencies is weaker than simple end-shift. Simple front-shift is weaker than front-shift
with Verbal adjacency.
While this is by no
means a full-scale presentation of Marathi word order or rather
Marathi phrase order, I hope I have presented enough material to
substantiate the approach to this problem proposed in the opening
discussion of some of the questions that need to be raised against
the common sense view that is too often uncritically accepted by
Indian students of language whether traditional grammarians or linguistically
trained analysis.
References
|
Ioos, martin 1957.
An axiomatic approach to English grammar. Talk, Linguistic
Institute, Ann Arbor. 6 August.
|
Kelkar, Ashok R. 1982.
Diathesis in Marathi. Talk, 3rd International
Conference of South Asian Languages and Linguistics Mysore,
Jan.
|
|
Suggested Marathi terminology
|
ellipsis(n.) ָ
|
|
adjacent (a) ֍֟
|
emphasis (n.) ָ֬-ק
|
|
agent (n)
|
facts of the case(n.) ֣, ßãן
|
|
background (n.) ״ ; ״
|
filler (n.) ã֭֯
|
|
circumstantial (n.) ßָ
|
fluid(free) (a.) ףֻ
|
|
clause (n.) ־
|
foreground (n.) ״
|
|
complement (n.)
|
function
(n.) ֵ
|
|
constituent(n.) ֙
|
goal(n.) ֭֬
|
|
contiguity (n.) ִ߯, ע
|
insertion(n.) ־֭
|
|
contrastive(a.) 1 (conveying difference)
־֓ 2 (conveying contrast or exclusion)
ֵ־֟ strongly c (major contrast) ï-־֓
weakly c (negligible contrast) ߝ-ֵ־֓
|
interpretation(n.)ִ֕
|
|
covert(a.) ϓ
|
manner(n.) ֬ßָ
|
|
de-emphasis(n.) ָ֬-ֵ
|
marked(a.)
|
|
diathesis (n.) ֵ֭
|
medial(a.) ֬ß
|
|
overt (a.) ύ
|
object (n.)
|
|
parenthesis (n.) 1 ֵָ2 ֵָ֟
|
offered (a.) ß
|
|
phrase (n.) ϤӬ
|
order (n.)
|
|
presupposed (a.) ߟ
|
situs (n.) ֭֬
|
|
rank (n.)
|
slot (n.) ã֭
|
|
rigid (fixed) (n.)
|
solid (n.) Ӭ
|
|
sentence accent ֻ
|
source (n.) ֭֬
|
|
sentence juncture -ߴ֍
|
speakers intent ց
|
|
sentence particle -֯֟
|
subject (n.)
|
|
sentence prosody -ֻפ
|
substrate (n.) ָ֬, ֵ
|
|
sentence tone -
|
tenant (n.) ָ̍
|
|
sentential (a.) ֟
|
theme (n.) ֵ
|
|
sequence (n.) ԯֵ, ԯָ
|
unmarked (a.)
|
|
situation (n.) Ӑ
|
verbal (n.) ֬
|
|
|
word (n.) 1(grammatical rank) ֤ 2 (phonological
rank) ֲword order(n.) ֤-
|
COLOPHON
This paper was presented in the Symposium Linguistic aspects
of Marathi at the 14th All India Conference of Linguists
held at Nagpur on 5-6 July 1985. It was published in Professor R.G.
Bhandarkar Commemoration Volume, Bulletin of the Deccan College Postgraduate and Research Institute 47-48:
129-34, 1988-9, published January 1989.
A Marathi version appeared Bāhṣā
ān&i jīvan 3:4; Divati: 1985
