Side Switching
1 Is elbowing a universal strategy?
the big start/little star approach predicts that losers will always stay on the side of the
host preferred by the highest ranked alignment constraint, though further from the
host than the winners
2 Hungarian pre-V
there are data, however, that indicate that elements do sometimes side switch
pre-V V
* V pre-V
neg V pre-V
* neg pre-V V
* neg pre-V V
Foc V pre-V
* Foc pre-V V
* pre-V foc V
wh V pre-V
* wh pre-V V
* pre-V wh V
X V pre-V Y Z
? X V Y pre-V Z
?? X V Y Z pre-V
the pre-V prefers a pre-verbal position but loses this to a number of elements
when it loses, it prefers an immediately post-verbal position
the further away from the verb it gets, the worse it is
3 Possible analysis
something must come in front of the verb (vFx)
the pre-V wants to follow the verb (pvFv)
but when nothing else comes in front of the verb, the pre-V must (vFx > pvFv)
thus side switching is achieved due to conflicting requirements of different constraints
4 Finnish focus
Finnish also has possible side switching data
SVO
* other orders
ST V O
S V OT
* other orders
SF V O
S V OF
* other orders
SVAO
*SVOA
S V O AF
* S V AF O
XC V
* V XC
XC S V
* S XC V
* XC V S
XC ST V
* ST XC V
* XC V ST
XC ST V
* ST XC V
* XC V ST
XC V SF
* XC S F V
* SF XC V
Finnish has a basic SVO word order: when S and O are unmarked they come either
side of the verb
Simple topic and focus do not seem to change this
the focus prefers either to be first (when subject) or last (when object)
A contrastive element always comes first
a first contrastive element does not affect the topic subject, which comes before the verb
a contrastive element does affect the focus subject, which comes last in the presence of
a contrast
5 Analysis
there are a number of factors here that are hard to capture with simple alignments
using the big star notation
the concepts of ‘first’ and ‘last’ are puzzling as they suggest big time losers
rather than winners – but then why would this be a strong requirement? The
contrast obviously competes for first position and wins!
Both object and non-subject focus prefer a last position (suggesting losing), but
the focus wins (how can a loser win?)
Why would a subject, which prefers a pre-verbal position (with or without topic
marking) prefer a last position when focus marked? – but only in the presence of
a contrast!!
trying to ignore this, we might try the following
subject precedes verb
focus follows verb, but not when focus (sPv > fFv)
contrast precedes verb and precedes subject (sPv > cPv)
when subject is focussed and there is a contrast, focus follows verb is important
(fFv > sPv) – we thus derive a contradiction in ranking: fFv > sPv > fFv
we won’t really be able to solve this problem until we have introduced other concepts
6 English adjectives
English adjectives show side switching phenomena
a proud father
* a father proud
a very proud father
* a father very proud
a father proud of his children
* a proud of his children father
adjectives typically precede the noun
but they follow the noun when they have a post head element
7 Discussion
again this is going to be difficult to account for – can’t do it the way we did for
Hungarian pre-V as it doesn’t seem to be anything to do with the noun as to why the
adjective precedes or follows it
so the adjective prefers a pre-noun position if it has no element following it and a postnoun position if it does (aPn > aFn and aFn > aPn = contradiction)
what appears to be going on is that the adjective likes a position next to the noun and it
prefers a position in front of the noun. But when it has something following it, it can’t
be both in front and next to the noun, so it switches sides and prefers the adjacent but
following position
but such side switching is exactly what the big start notation predicts should be
impossible
the question is how to accommodate a preference for elbowing and a preference for
side switching in the same system?
8 Analysis
suppose we replace the big star system with a more refined system
xP/Fy ordering constraints that only evaluate order, not adjacency
these are categorical – violated once by each instance of a wrong order
xyz, xzy, xz..y all satisfy the constraint
yxz, yzx, yz...x all violate the constraint to the same extent
xAy adjacency constraint that only evaluated adjacency to host, not order
these are gradient constraints – violated to a more or less degree depending on
how far the target is from the host
xy and yx are equivalent (not violated)
xzy and yzx are equivalent (one violation)
now we have the constraints
adjective wants to be adjacent to noun
aAn
adjective wants to be in front of noun
aPn > aFn
complements follow heads
cFh > cPh (= head initial)
complements are adjacent to heads
cAh
that the complement follow the head is more important than that the adjective
precede the noun
cFh > aPn
that the adjective be adjacent to the noun is more important than that the
adjective precedes the noun
aAn > aPn
the ranking we end up with is
cFh > cAh > aAn > aPn > the rest
=>A N
NA
ACN
ANC
CAN
CNA
=>N A C
NCA
cFh cAh aAn aPn
*
*!
cFh cAh aAn aPn
*!
*!
*!
*!
*
*
*
*!
*
*
9 How to get elbowing