Scrambling is a syntactic phenomenon wherein sentences can be formulated using a variety of different word orders without a substantial change in meaning. Instead, the reordering of words from their canonical position has consequences on their contribution to the discourse (i.e., the information's "newness" to the conversation). Scrambling does not occur in English, but it is frequent in languages with freer word order, such as German, Russian, Persian and Turkic languages. The term was coined by John R. "Haj" Ross in his 1967 dissertation and is widely used in present work, particularly with the generative tradition.
Analysis
Discourse Although scrambling does not change the semantic interpretation ("meaning") of the sentence, its scrambled configurations will be given in particular contexts related to discourse. This is the underlying information that contextualizes a conversation, when you add to the discourse you will reference "old" and "new" information. Within syntax, these can be structurally represented through topic (TopP) and focus (FocP) phrases. Topic is the pre-established context of the discourse, whereas Focus is the "new" or emphasized information being highlighted.
Tree structure (movement approach)
These additional phrasal categories occur between the clausal phrase (CP) and tense phrase (TP previously referred to as inflection phrase "IP"). Both TopP and FocP have empty specifier positions that can house the scrambled XPs (phrases). When using discourse phrasal categories, what would typically be notated as "CP" becomes ForceP which will specify the clausal type (i.e., declarative, interrogative, etc.).
The empty specifier positions (i.e., "XP") in the figure provide a landing site for phrases to move to. These sites are where phrases will be scrambled under the A-movement approach, which claims that scrambled words move to clause-initial position (see below). This movement has been proposed to be driven by the structural constraint "EPP" (extended projection principle), which selects for a phrasal category as its specifier. Unlike the EPP:D feature in "DP movement" into subject position, it functions similarly to EPP in wh-movement and topicalization, where it selects for a phrasal category that the language allows to move into "topic" and "focus" position (often determiner phrases "DP" or preposition phrases "PP").
Case marking Scrambling is most common in morphologically rich languages with overt case markers, which help to keep track of how entities relate to a verb. For example, the Japanese suffix [-ga] is a nominative marker, which means that the entity is the subject of the verb, and [-o] is an accusative marker that signals the object of a verb. This allows speakers to know that [Kēkio Maryga taberu] means "Mary eats cake" and not "Cake eats Mary".
Examples
Examples from Japanese (short distance) Japanese is an SOV language with extensive scrambling due to its robust case-marking system (e.g., が -ga for nominative case, subject marker; を -o for accusative case, direct object marker; に -ni for dative case, indirect object or location marker). Japanese relies heavily on case markers to determine the roles of constituents, allowing word order to be flexible without ambiguity. Scrambling has no syntactic or semantic penalty because the parser immediately uses case markers to interpret arguments. It is often driven by the need to emphasize certain constituents or highlight new information.
The following example from Japanese illustrates a transitive example of short distance scrambling (i.e., to clause initial position).
1(a). Canonical sentence Mary-ga kēki-otaberu Mary-NOMcake -ACCeats "Mary eats cake" In this default sentence, the subject ('Mary') and object (kēki, 'cake') retain their typical order. There is no specific emphasis or focus with the default sentence structure. 1(b). Scrambled sentence Kēki-oMary-gataberu Cake-ACCMary-NOMeats "Mary eats cake" The object (kēki, 'cake') is fronted, highlighting the subject ('Mary') as new information or the focus.
As you can see, in this table, despite the ordering of the agent (i.e., one who carries out action) 'Mary' and the patient (i.e., thing being acted upon) 'cake' changing, there is not difference in their core meaning. Instead, what changes is the information being emphasized. In 1(a), there is either no focus (a statement), or the 'cake' is being emphasized, whereas in 1(b), 'Mary' is the focus.
A speaker would generate the sentence in 1(b) when they wanted to emphasize Mary, or when providing new information. For example, if someone asked "who is eating the cake?", the response could be "CakeTOP MARYFOC eats". The canonical sentence "Mary cake eats" would still be an appropriate answer, but the scrambled configuration emphasizes the "new" information.
Studies (Yamashita, 1997) show that scrambled sentences in Japanese do not impose a processing penalty, unlike in some other languages. Case markers enable the parser to immediately assign syntactic roles, reducing reliance on word order. At early parsing stages, Japanese exhibits non-configurationality. This indicates that: 1) Arguments are not strictly hierarchically ordered; 2) Constituents attach directly to the clause, with case markers providing necessary cues for syntactic and semantic interpretation.
Examples from German
Ditransitive embedded vlause The following examples from German illustrate typical instances of scrambling:
{|cellspacing="10" ||b.||dass||derNOM Mann||dieACC Bohnen||derDAT Frau||gab |- ||c.||dass||derDAT Frau||derNOM Mann||dieACC Bohnen||gab |- ||d.||dass||derDAT Frau||dieACC Bohnen||derNOM Mann||gab |- ||e.||dass||dieACC Bohnen||derNOM Mann||derDAT Frau||gab |- ||f.||dass||dieACC Bohnen||derDAT Frau||derNOM Mann||gab
These examples illustrate scrambling in the midfield of a subordinate clause in German. The "midfield" is a position within the sentence structure, with "frontfield" and "endfield" acting like bookends for the sentence (usually C-head/subject and V/object). The midfield is where we typically see scrambling occur in freer word order languages.
All six clauses are acceptable, whereby the actual order that appears is determined by pragmatic considerations such as emphasis (i.e., Focus and Topic). The canonical word order is usually considered the one that native speakers accept as the most natural in which none of the referents are known. If one takes the first clause (clause a) as the canonical order, then scrambling has occurred in clauses b–f. The three constituents (DP's) der Mann, der Frau, and die Bohnen have been scrambled to different positions depending on the discourse, with the second pronounced entity (DP) being the focus of the phrase (see "Discourse").
Definite vs. indefinite pronouns There is a clear tendency for definite pronouns to appear to the left in the midfield. In this regard, definite pronouns are frequent candidates to undergo scrambling:
The canonical position of the object in German is to the right of the subject (i.e., SOV). In this regard, the object pronouns mich in the first example and uns in the second example have been scrambled to the left, so that the clauses now have OS (object-subject) order. The second example is unlike the first example as it necessitates an analysis in terms of a discontinuity, due to the presence of the auxiliary verb wird 'will'.
Non-midfield scrambling or topicalization? Scrambling can be an ambiguous term, and identifying word movement that fits cleanly into it can be difficult. Standard instances of scrambling in German occur in the midfield, as stated above. There are, however, many non-canonical orderings, whose displaced constituents do not appear in the midfield. One can argue that such examples also involve scrambling:
The past participle erwähnt has been topicalized in this sentence, but its object, the pronoun das, appears on the other side of the finite verb. There is no midfield involved in this case, which means the non-canonical position in which das appears in relation to its governor erwähnt cannot be addressed in terms of midfield scrambling. The position of das also cannot be addressed in terms of extraposition, since extraposed constituents are relatively heavy, much heavier than das, which is a very light definite pronoun. Given these facts, one can argue that a scrambling discontinuity is present. The definite pronoun das has been scrambled rightward out from under its governor erwähnt. Hence, the example suggests that the scrambling mechanism is quite flexible.
On the other hand, while German's ability to scramble verbs is debatable, it does allows for verb-head topicalization. As seen in the figure, it can be adequately argued that this sentence does not involve scrambling as we currently understand it. In this tree, the verb [erwähnt] moves to the topic position, the auxiliary complementizer [hat] moves to the C head, and [er] moves into subject position. This changes the underlying sentence [Er hat das nicht erwähnt] into [Erwähnt hat er das nicht ___] without any scrambling involving TopicP and FocusP. This highlights how difficult it is for syntacticians to tease apart what processes actually account for changes to canonical word-order. These processes may operate completely independently, or could be aspects of the same syntactic processes that may one day be unified into a single theory.
*Note: Variations in the sentence [Er hat das nicht erwähnt] (e.g., [Das er hat das nicht erwähnt]) could be examples of A-movement scrambling
Similarities to extraposition Scrambling is like extraposition (but unlike topicalization and wh-fronting) in a relevant respect; it is clause-bound. That is, one cannot scramble a constituent out of one clause into another in all cases:
Grammatical sentence
Ungrammatical Sentence
The first example has canonical word order. The second example illustrates how the definite pronoun [das] becomes ungrammatical when scrambled out of the embedded clause into the main clause. The sentence becomes strongly unacceptable. Extraposition is similar. When one attempts to extrapose a constituent out of one clause into another, the result is unacceptable. However, there are cases where words can be scrambled outside of a clause ("long-distance scrambling"), although this form of scrambling is governed by additional rules compared to clause-initial ("short-distance") scrambling.
Example from Persian Scrambling in Persian plays a significant role in organizing information structure, especially in topicalization and contrasive focus.
Topicalization In Persian, topics are typically specific and frequently marked by the specificity particle -râ. The topicalized element scrambles to a higher syntactic position, this includes Spec-Cp or Spec-IP.
Canonical SOV word order
Scrambled (topicalized) order
In the scrambled example, the object in ketâb-ro ("this book") is topicalized. This suggests that "this book" refers to the old or background information that is already familiar to both the speaker and the listener.
Contrastive focus Contrastive focus highlights the element of the sentence that are new, emphasized, or contrasted. The focus elements scramble to the left, which are typically into Spec-Cp or Spec-IP position. They also receives phonological stress for emphasis. Canonical SOV word order
Scrambled (topicalized) order
The object YE ketâb ("A BOOK") is scrambled to the left-most position. It is also marked with stress, which indicates that it is contrasively focused. This implies that Kimea significantly bought a book instead of something else.
Example from Czech