Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T08:32:39.026Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Word-order change in progress: the case of Slovene and Serbo-Croat and its relevance for Germanic1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

David C. Bennett
David C. Bennett
Affiliation:
School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It will be suggested in this article that Slovene, a South Slavonic language, is on the way to acquiring verb-second (V2) word order. In providing evidence in support of this view I shall compare Slovene, on the one hand, with the closely related language Serbo-Croat and, on the other hand, with relevant details from the history of the Germanic languages. The point of comparing it with Serbo-Croat is to discover the respects in which the word order of these two languages has diverged. Taken together with what is known about the word order of Common Slavonic, the facts emerging from this comparison allow us to identify one major respect in which Slovene has changed and two respects in which it is still changing. At the same time, they reveal a major respect in which Serbo-Croat word order is also changing. The point of comparing Slovene with the Germanic languages is twofold. First, since all the present-day Germanic languages either have or have had V2 word order (Haiman, 1974), it is possible that their history can help us to understand the changes currently taking place in Slovene and to predict how Slovene might change in the future. Secondly, where details of the history of the Germanic languages are poorly understood, the possibility exists of gaining fresh insight into them in the light of the changes that have taken place more recently, or indeed are still taking place, in Slovene. In this connection we shall assess the plausibility of two theories concerning the adoption of V2 word order by the Germanic languages, those of Vennemann (1975) and Wackernagel (1892).

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , September 1987 , pp. 269 - 287
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Babić, S. (1964–1965). Lingvistika i logika Ivana Brabeca. Jezik 12. 151–158.Google Scholar
Bennett, D. C. (1986). Towards an explanation of word-order differences between Slovene and Serbo-Croat. Slavonic and East European Review 64. 1–24.Google Scholar
Berneker, E. (1900). Die Wortfolge in den slavischen Sprachen. Berlin: Behr.Google Scholar
Brabec, I. (1964–1965). Enklitika – šta je to? Jezik 12. 143–151.Google Scholar
Brabec, I., Hraste, M. & Živković, S. (1965). Gramatika hrvatskosrpskoga jezika. Zagreb: Školska Knjiga.Google Scholar
Browne, W. E. (1975). Serbo-Croatian enclitics for English-speaking learners. In Filipović, R. (ed.), Contraslive analysis of English and Serbo-Croatian. Zagreb: Institute of Linguistics, University of Zagreb. 105–134.Google Scholar
Bugarski, R. (1968). On the interrelatedness of grammar and lexis in the structure of English. Lingua 19. 233–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cankar, I. (1968). Bela krizantema. (Serbo-Croat translation by Roksanda Njeguš.) Ljubljana: Državna Založba Slovenije; and Belgrade: Prosveta.Google Scholar
Delbrück, B. (1900). Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen (Part III). Vol. 5 of Brugmann, K. and Delbrück, B., Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Strassburg: Trübner.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. (1974). Targets and syntactic change. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, M. (1978). The evolution of French syntax: a comparative approach. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hyman, L. M. (1975). On the change from SOV to SVO: evidence from Niger-Congo. In Li (1975). 113–147.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1955). Slavic languages: a condensed survey, 2nd ed.New York: Columbia University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1971). Les enclitiques slaves. In Selected writings. Vol. II: Word and language. The Hague: Mouton. 16–22.Google Scholar
Jones, O. F. (1958). The interrogative particle -u in Germanic. Word 14. 213–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kovačič, I. (1977). Pronominals and reference: a contrastive analysis of English, Slovene and Croatian–Serbian. University of Zagreb master's thesis.Google Scholar
Li, C. N. (ed.) (1975). Word order and word order change. Austin, Texas: University of Texas.Google Scholar
Meillet, A. (1934). Le slave commun, 2nd ed.Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
Mrazović, P. (1982). Die Stellung der Satzelemente im Deutschen und im Serbokroatischen. Heidelberg: Julius Groos.Google Scholar
Pešikan, M. (1958–1959). O mestu enklitike u rečenici. Naš jezik 9. 305–311.Google Scholar
Toporišič, J. (1976). Slovenska slovnica. Maribor: Založba Obzorja.Google Scholar
Vennemann, T. (1975). An explanation of drift. In Li (1975). 269–305.Google Scholar
Wackernagel, J. (1892). Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung. Indogermanische Forschungen 1. 333–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar