CC BY
35
Лингвистика
A. Sideltsev
Verb Adjacent Focus in Hittite1
В статье рассматриваются позиции фокуса в хеттском языке. Хеттский нарушает сформулированную Д. Бюрингом универсалию, согласно которой в языке может быть только две линейные позиции фокуса - из них приглагольная позиция должна быть предглагольной в языке с порядком слов SOV и постглагольной в языке с порядком слов SVO. Хеттский демонстрирует и предглагольную, и пост-
1 The paper was supported by grant RGNF No 11-04-00282a «Typology of Morphosyntactic Parameters» and by the Programme of the Section of Language and Literature OIFN “Language and Literature in the Context of Cultural Dinamics”. I wish to express my sincere gratitude to P. Arkadiev, A. Bauer and O. Belyaev who read and commented upon earlier versions of the paper. All possible errors of fact or interpretation are the author’s only.
глагольную позиции фокуса, хотя и является языком SOV. В статье рассматриваются особенности обеих позиций и делается вывод, что постглагольная позиция фокуса для хеттского - не полностью сформировавшееся новообразование. Ключевые слова: хеттский язык, информационная структура, фокус, топик, пред-глагольная и постглагольная позиции фокуса.
The typology of focus realization, i.e. how different languages express focusing, has been developing rapidly recently, see, e.g., [4; 35]. Among other things, it has been claimed that there are languages which code focus configurationally, i.e. by constituent order variation: “If the prosodic system of a language doesn’t allow A in the string A B to be prominent, two more options arise: No adjustment whatsoever (i.e. violation of FocusProminence); or syntactic adjustment to B A to get A into a prosodically prominent position. The latter case will result in a language that marks focus by constituent order variation ...” [4].
In the present paper I consider Hittite data which are relevant for the configurational analysis.
Information Structure Framework
The information structure framework I employ in the paper is basically that of [22]: it operates with topic and focus only, without introducing other terms, such as background, comment, given etc1. As I deal mostly with focus, the distinction between informational and contrastive focus established in [19] is of particular importance.
A more detailed taxonomy of focus types and a more formal definition of focus is present in the influential paper of [20]: informational focus is understood as question-answer focus (with both covert and explicit questions). Contrastive focus for Krifka is constituted by corrective (and additive) focus: “The notion of contrastive focus I would like to restrict to focus used for truly contrastive purposes, which presupposes that the CG content contains a proposition with which the current utterance can be constructed, or that such a proposition can be accommodated” [20]. “There is evidence for particular marking strategies for contrastive focus, like the use of particular syntactic positions or of special prosodic patterns” [20]2. A variety of contrastive
1 There exists a practically infinite number of competing frameworks. Cf., just for example [10] or [8; 9].
2 Cf.: “One such notion is contrast, which is distinguished from pure information focus that shows up, e.g., in the answer to constituent questions. With contrast, the alternatives have to be given explicitly, and usually it is also assumed that only one of the contrasted alternatives is acceptable. For example, answers to alternative questions would qualify as having contrastive focus:
(7) A: Do you want TEA or COFFEE? B: I want TEA.
Филологические
науки
Лингвистика
focus is exhaustive focus: “It indicates that the focus denotation is the only one that leads to a true proposition, or rather more general: that the focus denotation is the logically strongest that does so” [20]. Confirmative, parallel and delimitation focus are not explicitly referred to either class. A similar taxonomy belongs to Dik, represented in the Hittitological tradition by [12; 13]. Verum focus is also commonly distinguished - focus on the truth value of a sentence [10; 20]. Yet another type is traditional emphatic focus, scalar focus in M. Krifka’s terms. “In it, the alternatives are ordered, and the focus denotation often is the least or greatest element. Scalar particles like even or at least require scalar focus, as well as strong polarity items such as in [Wild HORses]F wouldn’t drag me there” [20].
Hittite Configurational Syntax
Hittite is an extinct Indo-European language (Anatolian group) attested in cuneiform script roughly in the first half of the second millennium BC. It is left branching with the rigid SOV word order. There are the following positions within a Hittite clause1:
left periphery (occupied by constituents fronted because they have a marked information structure status - constrastive focus or topic, for example2), first position (occupied by some adjuncts, subject, object)3, preverb (occupied by preverb), immediately preverbal position4 (occupied by indefinite pronouns5,
There is a plausible argument that we do not need contrastive focus as a separate basic notion, as we already have introduced givenness; hence contrastive focus can be defined as that subtype of focus in which the alternatives are given. The uniqueness assumption may follow if we assume that apparent non-uniqueness arises because alternatives can be combined (e.g., we saw a tiger and a baboon on the road), but that the explicit enumeration of alternatives that does not include a combination (e.g., or both in (7.A)) suggests that such combinations should be disregarded” [11].
1 Cf. [23 passim; 18, p. 406]. Dislocations are not considered. The positions are defined linearly, not structurally. The reason for this is that although there is no consensus as to whether dedicated focus and topic positions should be defined structurally or linearly, see for a brief overview [10, p. 170], but it seems that the linear definion is preferable [10, p. 170].
2 See in more detail for the finer-grained structure [34] and in the present paper below.
3 It is somewhat difficult to draw the exact borderline between the left periphery and the first position. E.g., [12, p. 251] supposes that some adjuncts can occupy the left periphery, I rather suppose that they are in the first position. However, this distinction is irrelevant for the argument of the present paper. Besides, left periphery and the first position which are defined in terms of clause structure in the present paper should not be confused with the initial and first positions which are linear surface positions in a clause. There have been repeated attempts to correlate them with the information structure or syntactic positions, see, e.g., [23; 12], but so far the correlation is not completely convincing.
4 Known in the cross-linguistic literature as IBV (immediately before the verb).
5 See [23, p. 36-37; 31, p. 155-158; 18, pp. 286, 406]. Actually, [18, p. 286] define the position more vaguely: “When kuiski is used substantivally, it tends to take a position quite close to the finite verb (i.e., toward the end of the clause)”. However, normally, indefinite pronouns are immediately in front of the verb.
negation and negative pronouns [18, pp. 341, 406], focused subjects [12; 13], some adjuncts and question words with a certain information structure status [13]), verb position, immediately postverbal position (occupied by both focus [1] and topic)1. An example of canonical word order is:
Ex. 1. MH/NS (CTH 261.B) KUB 13.2+ rev. iii 25-27
1. ANA BELI=ma=at=san le ie-zzi #
for superior=but=it=LOC.PART2 not.PROHIB decide-3SG.PRS
2. ANA SES=SU=ya=at=za=san NIN=SU
for brother=his=and=it=REFL=LOC.PART wife=his ar-i=si=ya le iya-zi #
friend-DAT.SG=his=and not.PROHIB make-3.SG.PRS
3. masga-nn=a=za le kuiski
bribe-ACC.SG=and=REFL not.PROHIB one.NOM.SG.C dai #
take.3SG.PRS
“(1) Let him not, however, decide it (the case) for (his) superior (2) Let him not decide it for his brother, his wife or his friend. (3) Let no one take a bribe”3.
Verb Adjacent Focus Positions
As follows from the above presentation, focus can be either in situ (in case of informational focus) and ex situ (in case of contrastive focus). If it is ex situ, it can occur in three positions - left peripheral, immediately preverbal and immediately postverbal. The left peripheral focus position is of no interest for the present paper.
For the immediately preverbal position see the following example with the replacing focus on the subject4:
Ex. 2. OH/OS (CTH 291) KBo 6.2 i 16-19
1. [(takk)]u LU.U19.LU-an kuiski hunikzi #
2. t=an istarnikzi #
3. nu apun saktaizzi #
4. pedi=ssi=ma LU.U19.LU-an pai #
5. nu E-ri=ssi anniskizzi #
6. kuitman=as lazziatta #
1 This position is clause internal as different from right dislocations which are clause external. It is known in the cross-linguistic literature as IAV (immediately after the verb).
2 Abbreviations: ACC - accusative, C - common gender, CONN - sentence connective, DAT - dative, LOC.PART - locative particle, N - neuter gender, NEG - negation marker, NOM -nominative, PRS - present, PST - past, PROHIB - prohibitive, REFL - reflexive, SG - singular.
3 Following [5, S, p. 250]. Cf. [26, p. 154-155; 18, p. 342; 5, S, p. 152].
4 Generally following [12, p. 301].
Филологические
науки
Лингвистика
7. man=as lazziatta=ma #
8. nu=sse 6 GiN KU.BABBARpai #
9. LUA.ZU=ya kussa-n apa-s=pat pai # §
doctor=and fee-ACC.SG he-NOM.SG.C=instead pay.3SG.PRS “(1) If anyone injures a (free) person (2) and incapacitates him, (3) he shall provide medical care for him, (4) while in his place he shall give a(nother) man. (5) He (the person who has been given) shall work on his estate, (6) until he recovers. (7) When he recovers, (8) he (the offender) shall pay him 6 sheqels (9) and he shall pay the doctor’s fee instead (of the patient)”1.
The postverbal focus position is illustrated by the following example:
Ex. 3. NH/NS (CTH 456.1.A) KUB 9.15 obv. ii 16’-20’
1. n=as=kan SA URU11^ sesdu #
2. mahhan=ma GE,-anza lukzi #
6
3. MULUD.ZAL.LE=kan wizzi #
4. luk-zi nawi #
become.bright-3SG.PRS not.yet
5. n=as=kan URU-riaz arha hudakpaiddu #
6. DUTU-us=an=kan SA URU11^ le wemiyanzi #
“(1) Let him spend the night inside the city. (2) But when the night grows brighter (3) (and) the morning star rises, (4) (while) it hasn’t yet become (really) bright, (5) let him promptly leave the city; (6) let the sun not find him inside the city”2.
The verb lukzi “get light” in clause 4 of this context is topical. It was introduced as focus in clause 1. Here it is an established topic3 whereas the negation is in contrastive focus.
Moreover, this clear Hittite picture is blurred by the fact that both immediately preverbal and immediately postverbal positions can contain not only focus, but also constituents with unmarked information structure status -some adjuncts, negation markers4, indefinite, negative and relative pronouns.
First I will illustrate the postverbal position:
Ex. 5. OH/OS (CTH 627.3.a) KBo 20.33+ obv. 12 [18, p. 425]
1 Following [16, p. 23]. Noted by [12, p. 301] as Ex. 8.18.
2 Following [21, p. 32-33; 5, p. 422].
3 It could be possible to assess verb fronting as conditioned by information structure if it entailed the change of discourse status from focal to topical. However, in clear cases immediate anaphora after first mention is at play if the verb in the left periphery is topical. Here it is obviously not. The same concerns head-tail linking - here there is no immediate clause adjacency with the identical verb forms. Thus supposition of head-tail linking is unlikely.
4 Adjuncts and negations in this position can code contrastive/scalar focus, informational focus and topic.
1. [lUKA]S4 tarh-zi kui-s #
runner win-3SG.PRS who-NOM.SG.C
2. 1 MA.NA KU.BABBAR U 2 NmDAwagadaspianzi #
“(2) They give one mina of silver and two w.-breads (1) to the runner who wins”. [31, p. 158]
Ex. 6. MH/MS (CTH 199) ABoT 65 obv. 8-9 [31, p. 158]
1. mGI®GIDRU-DINGIRi/M-i-n tapassTe-t kuitki #
Hattusili-ACC.SG.C worry-3SG.PST something.NOM.SG.N
2. nu URUHattusi pennis #
“(1) Something has worried/excited? Hattusili. (2) He drove to Hattusa”1. In these and similar cases the information structure statuses of both the verb and the other constituents which are ex situ is not different from those in situ. In transformational terms such examples involve movement of the verb to a higher position2. It is not conditioned by information structure.
The immediately preverbal position is analogous:
Ex. 7. OH/OS (CTH 416.A) KBo 17.1+ obv. i 40’
KASKAL-an LUGAL-u-s kui-n wi-zzi #
way-ACC.SG king-NOM.SG which-ACC.SG.C come-3SG.PRS “Which way the king comes” following [25, p. 22-23; 15, K, p. 219]3. Ex. 8. NH/NS (CTH 177.3) KUB 23.101 obv. ii 1-6 [18, p. 428]
1. [kasa k up]pissar GIM-an uppahhun #
2. [n=at. . -i]s uUTEME=YA austa #
3. nu=mu memian sakuwassaran [ ] #
4. [nu kue uppia]ssarHLA uppahhun #
5. n=at au #
6. HU[L-uwa] uppiassarHLA # §
7. nu tu-el LUTEMU kuwat UL punus-ta #
CONN you-GEN.SG messenger why NEG ask-3SG.PST
8. memahhun=si GIM-an #
‘(1) When I have just sent my gift(s), (2) PN, my messenger, saw them. (3) [he told me] the whole story (lit. word) (4) The gifts which I sent, (5) look at them - (6) are they bad gifts? (7) Why did you not ask your messenger (8) how I told him: (‘I will send to my brother good gifts only when the messenger of my brother reaches me’?)”4.
1 Following [17, p. 243].
2 Structurally T position, linearly clause internal position, often (but not always) occupied in the canonical word order by the preverb. The verb moves into this position only if there is no preverb in the clause.
3 Usually, relative pronouns are either clause first or second (depending on the type of the relative clause).
4 Following [5, S, p. 61; 6, p. 52; 18, p. 428]. Cf. [14, p. 278-279].
Филологические
науки
Лингвистика
It follows from the last example that negation markers, negative and indefinite pronouns occur immediately before (and after) the verb. If they are present in a clause in the canonical position1, nothing intervenes between them and the verb2. In the rare cases when they are attested in my corpus together with preverbal foci or wh-words (Ex. 8), negative and indefinite pronouns occur immediately before3 the verb and thus intervene between the verb and the contrastive focus.
A very similar distribution is also attested in Ossetic and some neighbouring languages [7]. D. Erschler describes the Ossetic clause architecture as indefinite pronouns etc. intervening between immediately preverbal focus position and the verb.
How do we interpret the distribution? In the introductory part I defined the immediately preverbal position as being occupied both by contrastive focus and some wh-words [13] and by negation markers coding informational focus, as well as some adjuncts bearing mostly focus and by indefinite pronouns and negative pronouns in any information structure status. Should we now split the position into two subpositions? Should we introduce finer-grained structure into the immediately preverbal position? Should we posit two different positions - one for contrastive focus and wh-words with the unexpectedness discourse function and the other for negation markers coding informational focus, as well as some adjuncts coding mostly focus and by the indefinite pronouns and negative pronouns which are often considered not to code focus or topic?
Actually, this distribution is compatible with any kind of analysis suggested above. What is important is the fact that a closed set of constituents can intervene between focus/wh-word and the verb.
Thus it looks that the IBV and IAV positions are identical. This is largely so, with one important exception: in a number of cases the information structure status of preverbal negation4 is different from that of postverbal negation5. The latter codes contrastive focus6, as in Ex. 9:
Ex. 9. MH/MS (CTH 147) KUB 14.1+ rev. 22-24
1 Negation markers can be fronted.
2 Actually, the formulation is too strong: the clauses where indefinite pronouns etc. are not immediately adjacent to the verb are also attested. In these cases the placement of indefinite pronouns is identical to subject and object DPs.
3 I assume that the same holds good for the immediately postverbal position, but so far such clauses are not attested in my corpus.
4 As well as of some adjuncts like QATAMMAi apenissan “in the following way”.
5 This is not always true: there are cases where the information structure status of the immediately preverbal and postverbal negations is identical. It happens when negation is informational focus in both positions.
6 See Ex. 3 above.
1. [KUR] URVHapalla=wa=kan nassu kuemi #
2. nasma=war=at QADU NAM.RAhiA GU4hi a UDUhiA arnumi #
3. [n=at ANA] DUTU® para pihhi #
4. namma=ma=kan KUR URUHapalla
furthermore=but-LOC.PART country Hapalla
kuen-ta=ya UL #
smite-2/3SG.PST=and NEG
5. ep-ta=ya=at UL #
seize-2/3SG.PST=and=it NEG
6. n=at ANA dUTUj para U[L paitta?] #
7. n=at=za mMadduwattas das #
“(1) I will either smite the country Hapalla (2) or I will remove it
together with civilian captives, cattle (and) sheep, (3) and will give [it
to] My Majesty’. (4) But subsequently you/he neither smote the country Hapalla, (5) nor seized it (6) and you/he d[id not give] it to My Majesty. (7) Madduwattas took it for himself’1.
As it was first observed by A. Bauer [1], negation is contrastive focus in clause 4 and all the rest of constituents are topical.
The former codes informational focus, as in Ex. 9:
Ex. 10. MH/NS (CTH 259) KUB 13.20 obv. 16-18
1. man DUTU-5/=ma lahh-i ukila UL pai-mi #
if majesty-my=but campaign-LOC.SG myself NEG go-1SG.PRS
2. nu tuzziya kuin DUMU.LUGAL nasma BE[L GAL] watarnahmi #
3. nu tuzzin lahhi apas pehutezzi #
“(1) If I, My Majesty, myself do not go on campaign, (2) then the prince or [great] lor[d] that I appoint as commander in the army, (3) he shall lead the army on campaign” [12] as Ex. 8.42.
The second important property of incomplete identity between IBV and IAV is the fact that the constituents which occupy the immediately preverbal position in the canonical word order and which land postverbally in case of verb movement into the T position occur predominantly in two constituent clauses if their information structure status is not identical to that in situ, - i.e. if they are contrastive or scalar foci. This is in dramatic contrast to the other constituents occupying the immediately preverbal position in the canonical word order whose information structure status is identical in both IAV and IBV positions, most prominently indefinite pronouns and wh-words. This difference makes it necessary to provide a two stage diachronic explanation for the existence of the IAV position.
1 Following [2, p. 149; 23, p. 102].
Филологические
науки
Лингвистика
The fact that the same set of constituents occurs in IAV and IBV positions, as well as the fact that the information structure status of both the verb and the IAV constituent is identical in a number of cases, makes it inevitable to suppose that originally the postverbal position was unmarked as for the information structure status: there existed free word order variation involving SOXV/SOVX where X occupies the immediately preverbal position in the canonical word order. This X was both informational and contrastive focus, rarer topic.
Then the IAV position got associated with contrastive/scalar focus: constituents with contrastive focus status belong to the X class - they occur in the IBV position ex situ, but due to free word order variation1 they could also land postverbally. This postverbal contrastive focus2 was sporadically reanalyzed as a post-verbal position dedicated for contrastive or scalar focus. Consequently, for a number of constituents for which the preverbal position is canonical3, the postverbal position was coming to be marked for contrastive or scalar focus. The process of grammaticalization of the postverbal position as the dedicated contrastive focus position was not finished in historical Hittite. Thus both informational and contrastive foci were linearly postverbal as well as topics. Still, in the absolute majority of two constituent clauses with contrastive negation the negation is postverbal.
This took place mostly in two-constituent clauses, because in two constituent clauses the leftmost non-verbal constituent is unmarked as to its information structure, especially if it is the constituent which occupies the immediately preverbal position. If the information structure status of this constituent is such that correlates with the ex-situ position, movement into the left periphery would produce no effect as linearly left peripheral and immediately preverbal positions are not distinguished in two constituent clauses4. So, if the information structure of such a constituent is such that correlates with the ex-situ position, there is no way for it to occur in an ex-situ position other than landing postverbally. In other words, the postverbal dedicated focus position which is only sporadically made use of in clauses involving more than two constituents5 becomes not only available, but the only ex-situ position for the non-verbal constituent to receive its marked information structure status. For it to land postverbally, the verb has to move into the T position without any change in its information structure status.
1 Which is realized as verb raising into the clause internal position (structurally T).
2 Which actually coexisted with information foci and even possibly topics.
3 Like negations and some adjuncts.
4 If negation markers or adjuncts occur in clauses involving more than two constituents, they are fronted into the left periphery if they code contrastive or scalar focus.
5 Because the main dedicated focus position in the left periphery is available for them.
As stated above, the fact that there are three dedicated focus positions is at odds with most cross-linguistic studies on discourse configurationality: the latter claim that a language should only possess either a preverbal or a
postverbal dedicated focus position [4, p. 35]. This overabundance of focus
positions suggests that one of them should be explained as derivative, at least diachronically. The postverbal focus position is the best candidate for this because it is the rarest and, more importantly, it demonstrates a non-trivial constraint on the structure of the clause (two-constituency). Thus I suppose that the postverbal dedicated focus position arose out of the free SOXV/SOVX variation as argued above.
This dependency between SOXV/SOVX free variation and postverbal focus is also present in the few SOV languages I am aware of which attest postverbal focus - Ossetic, Georgian [7, p. 686-687] and Nakh-Daghestanian [3], e.g., Digor Ossetic:
Ex. 11. a. preverbal focus
tuKd-i [ermest mm-m]F ne ravardtonce
war-OBL only I.OBL-DAT NEG give.3PL.PST
“During the war, they gave out (medals) not only to me” ^ghuzarti
(2009)
b. postverbal focus
ba-jzadej=ma=si [ermest=der farast]F
PRV-remain.3SG.PST=ELSE=ABL.3PL only=EMP nine
“There remained only nine of them” Maliti (2008) [7, p. 687, Ex. 41].
It is necessary to emphasize that in Ossetic and Nakh-Daghestanian the postverbal position is in no way a dedicated focus position, as it can also contain topics (Lyutikova, pers.comm.).
It is also claimed that even in Hungarian, a prime example for preverbal foci, postverbal focus position is available [10, p. 170-1; 11]:
Ex. 12. Tegnap este BEMUTATTAM Petert MARINAK. yesterday evening PRT-introduced-I Peter.ACC Mary.DAT “Yesterday evening, I introduced Peter to Mary” [10, p. 170-171; 11]. In this example both the VP and the dative object are focused and the accusative object is given, but the dative object is postverbal [11]. Whether the Hungarian data should be explained as the Hittite one above remains unclear at present. In [10, p. 170-171; 11] an explanation featuring prosodic prominence of focus analogous to that proposed for Romance and Bantu languages (see, among others, [28, 29, 30]) is put forward. However, it remains rather vague for Hungarian.
Филологические
науки
Лингвистика
Conclusion
Hittite, just like Ossetic and Nakh-Daghestanian languages, violates the generalization of [4] that a language should display two dedicated focus positions and that a language may possess either only IAV or IBV dedicated focus positions. Hittite possesses three dedicated focus positions - in the left periphery, immediately before the verb and immediately after the verb.
However, in conformity with [4], Hittite unambiguously shows that IAV focus position is derivative from the IBV position. Thus, at least diachronically, Buring’s generalization still holds.
Bibliography
1. Bauer A. Verberststellung im Hethitischen // Indogermanistik und Linguistik im Dialog - Akten der XIII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 21. bis 27. September 2008 in Salzburg / Krisch Th. et al. (eds.). Wiesbaden, 2011. S. 39-48.
2. Beckman G. Hittite Diplomatic texts. Atlanta, Georgia, 1996.
3. Belyaev O., Forker D. Information structure of Nakh-Daghestanian languages // Information structure and spoken language in a cross-linguistic perspective / Fernandez-Vest M.M. Jocelyne, Van Valin Robert D. Jr. (eds.). In press.
4. Buring D. Towards a Typology of Focus Realization // Information Structure / Zimmermann M., Fery C. (eds). Oxford, 2009. P. 177-205.
5. The Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago / Ed. by H. Guterbock, H. Hoffner, T. van den Hout. L-N. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1989-.
6. Roos J. de. Die Hethiter und das Ausland // Motivation und Mechanismen des Kulturkontaktes in der spaten Bronzezeit / Prechel D. (ed.) Eothen 13. Firenze,
2005. S. 39-58.
7. Erschler D. From preverbal focus to preverbal ‘‘left periphery’’: The Ossetic clause architecture in areal and diachronic perspective // Lingua. 2012. № 122. P. 673-699.
8. Erteschik-Shir N. The Dynamics of Focus Structure. Cambridge, 1997.
9. Erteschik-Shir N. Information Structure: The Syntax-Discourse Interface. Oxford,
2007.
10. Fery C. Information Structural Notions and the Fallacy of Invariant Correlates // The Notions of Information Structure. Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure. Working Papers of the SFB 632 / Fery C., Fanselow G., Krifka M. (eds.). Potsdam, 2007. P. 161-184.
11. Fery C., Krifka M. Information structure. Notional distinctions, ways of expression // Unity and diversity of languages / van Sterkenburg P. (ed.). Amsterdam.
2008. P. 123-136.
12. Goedegebuure P. Reference, Deixis and Focus in Hittite. The demonstratives ka-“this”, apa- “that” and asi “yon”. Academisch proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam, 2003.
13. Goedegebuure P. Focus Structure and Q-Word Questions in Hittite // Linguistics.
2009. Vol. 47/4. P. 945-969.
14. Hagenbuchner A. Die Korrespondenz der Hethiter. 2. Die Briefe mit Transkription, Ubersetzung und Kommentar. Texte der Hethiter. 16. Heidelberg, 1989.
15. Puhvel J. Hittite Etymological Dictionary // Trends in Linguistics. Documentation
1. Berlin-NY, 1984-.
16. Hoffner H. Jr. The Laws of the Hittites. DMOA. 23. Leiden, NY, Koln, 1997.
17. Hoffner H. Jr. Letters from the Hittite Kingdom. Atlanta, 2009.
18. Hoffner H. Jr. Melchert C. A Grammar of the Hittite Language. Part 1: Reference
Grammar. Winona Lake, Indiana, 2008.
19. Kiss K.E. Identificational focus and information focus // Language. 1998. № 74. P. 245-273.
20. Krifka M. Basic notions of information structure // Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure. Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure. Working Papers of the SFB 632 / Fery C., Fanselow G. and Krifka M. (eds.). Potsdam, 2007. P. 13-56.
21. Kummel H.M. Ersatzrituale fur den hethitischen Konig. StBoT 3. Wiesbaden, 1967.
22. Lambrecht K. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge, 1994.
23. Luraghi S. Old Hittite Sentence Structure. London - NY, 1990.
24. Neu E. Althethitische Ritualtexte in Umschrift. StBoT 25. Wiesbaden, 1980.
25. Otten H., Soucek V. Ein althethitisches Ritual fur das Konigspaar. StBoT 8. Wiesbaden, 1969.
26. Pecchioli Daddi F. Il vincolo per i governatori di provincia // Studia Mediterranea 14. Series Hethitica 3. Pavia, 2003.
27. Probert Ph. Clause boundaries in Old Hittite relative sentences // Transactions of the Philological Society. 2006. V. 104. № 1. P. 17-83.
28. Samek-Lodovici V. Prosody-Syntax Interactions in the Expression of Focus // Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. 2005. P. 687-755.
29. Samek-Lodovici V. When Right Dislocation Meets the Left-Periphery // Lingua.
2006. № 116. P. 836-873.
30. Samek-Lodovici V. Topic, Focus and Background in Italian Clauses // Focus and Background in Romance Languages / A. Dufter and D. Jakob (eds). Johns Benjamin, 2009. P. 333-358.
31. Sideltsev A. Inverted Word Order in Middle Hittite // Anatolian Languages. Association for the History of Language Studies in the Science & History of Language 6 / Shevoroshkin V.V., Sidwell P. J. (eds.). Canberra, 2002. P. 137-188.
32. Sideltsev A. Verb Movement in Hittite: a Reassessment. MS.
33. Singer I. The Hittite KI.LAM Festival. StBoT 28. Wiesbaden, 1984.
34. Vai M. Osservazioni sulla periferia sinistra della frase in ittita // Anatolistica, indoeuropeistica e oltre nelle memorie dei seminari offerti da Onofrio Carruba (anni 1997-2002) al Medesimo presentate. Antiqui Aevi Grammaticae Artis Studiorum Consensus. Series maior I. Milano, 2011. P. 39-56.
35. van der Wal J. Why does focus want to be adjacent to the verb? // Workshop “Parametric variation in discourse configurationality”, 28-29 August 2012. Meeting Societas Linguistica Europaea, Stockholm.
Филологические
науки
