Deze publicatie is tot stand gekomen met steun van: Vlaams-Nederlands Comité voor Nederlandse taal en cultuur (vnc) Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (nwo) Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Vlaanderen (fwo) Meertens Instituut (knaw)

Dutch is typically known to allow scrambling. Finnish on the other hand has a flexible word order. Even though the two languages differ in many aspects and Finnish does not have scrambling in the sense of an alternation between an adverb and an object, we suggest that the relation between word order and interpretation observed in the two languages is similar. On the basis of new empirical data from Finnish, we show that in both Dutch and Finnish movement of the direct object from its base-position to a noncanonical position in the middle field is related to discourse anaphoricity. IntroductionDutch has a rather rigid word order, but it does allow scrambling. Following Van Gelderen (2003) -but contra e.g. Hopp (2007) -we take scrambling in Dutch to be the alternation between a (sentential) adverb and an object (thus excluding dative shift or PP-movement across an adverb). Finnish, on the other hand, has a relatively free word order. It is a discourse-configurational language (Vilkuna 1989(Vilkuna , 1995, in the sense that word order is mainly driven by discourse considerations. Although Finnish does not seem to show scrambling as in Dutch, the aim of this paper is to show that the relation between word order and interpretation in Finnish is highly similar to the relation between word order and interpretation that is found in Dutch scrambling with full noun phrases. To capture the Finnish word order data in relation to the Dutch scrambling data, a broader definition of the notion scrambling is assumed. That is, we take scrambling in the broad sense to indicate movement of the direct object (DO) to a noncanonical position in the middle field of the clause, and we show that scrambling in the broad sense has the same effect on interpretation in both Dutch and Finnish, namely a D-linked interpretation of the scrambled object.

Een reactie op het artikel van Van TrijpEefje Boef en Tanja Temmerman NT ２１ (１): １２１-１３６