Verb Second

Those languages require the verb to fill the second linear position in main clauses, as the example given in (51) from Standard German.

(51) Standard German

Jan hat das Buch gelesen John has the book read

‘John has read the book’

They can be considered similar to Focus Verb Adjacency, but only one element can be found to the left of the inflected verb, as given in (52) to be compared with (50b, from Hungarian).

(50) Standard German

a. *Das Buch Jan hat gestern gelesen the book John has yesterday read b. *Gestern Jan hat das Buch gelesen yesterday John has the book read

I will discuss the mainstream analysis proposed for Verb Second languages in chapter 2, which will be connected to the cartographic guidelines I have discussed in chapter 1.

Specifically, I shall discuss the properties of the LP of V2 languages and shall compare them with those of the LP of Italian.

Chapter 2

On V2: history and current analyses

2.0. Verb Second languages: an overview

As stated at the end of chapter 1, over the last twenty years it has become clear that a single projection in the LP was insufficient to capture the quality and the quantity of the elements which cross-linguistically occur within the domain of the CP. Despite such considerable empirical evidence, a portion of the syntactic community still objects the Split-CP hypothesis drawing on languages like Standard German, in which only one element (2) occurs in the LP, differently from Italian (1).

(1) Italian

A Maria, domani, il tuo libro, glielo devi dare al più presto.

To Maria, tomorrow, your book, you it-to should give as soon as possible

(2) German

a. Jan hat das Buch gelesen John has the book read

‘John has read the book’

b. *Das Buch Jan hat das Buch gelesen c. *Gestern Jan hat das Buch gelesen

d. Ich denke, dass Jan gestern das Buch gelesen hat I think that John yesterday the book read has.

‘I think that John read the book yesterday’

e. Ich glaube, Jan hat gestern das Buch gelesen I believe John has yesterday the book read

‘I believe, John read the book yesterday’

As shown by the examples in (2), German requires the verb to fill the second²¹ linear position in main clauses. In those embedded contexts (2b) overtly displaying the complementizer (2d), the verb remains very low in the structure. German (since Erdmann 1886) belongs to a bigger set of languages referred to as Verb Second languages (henceforth V2). Most contemporary Germanic languages are V2: Dutch (Den Besten 1983; Haegeman 1996), Mainland Scandinavian, Insular Scandinavian (Vikner 1995 inter alia), Yiddish (Santorini 1989) and Afrikaans (Biberauer 2002) as well as older stages of Germanic (Benucci 1997: 47; Walkden 2014), including Old English (Fischer et al. 2001;

Haeberli 2002). Modern English is the only contemporary Germanic language without V2 in root contexts, but it has some residual (Rizzi 1996; or partial in Sailor 2016) instances of V2. V2 is also attested in Breton (Roberts 2004), Kashmiri (Bhatt 1999;

Manetta 2011), Estonian, Sorbian (a Slavic language spoken at the border between Germany and the Czech Republic), in two dialects of the Indo-Aryan language Himachali (Holmberg 2015), and in the Nakh-Dagestanian (Caucasic) language Ingush spoken in Russia (Nichols 2011). Proto Indo-european (Kiparsky 1995) has been considered V2, and as well have older stages of Romance languages (Benincà 1983, 1995; Poletto 2014;

Wolfe 2015). The only modern Romance language with V2 orders is (the sum of different varieties of) Rhaetoromance spoken in Italy (Poletto 2002; Casalicchio & Cognola 2014) and in Switzerland (Fuß 2005; Anderson 2005, 2016). Finally, Dinka, a Nilo-Saharan language spoken in South Sudan (Van Urk & Richards 2015: 6) is a V2 language of a particular type, to be discussed in further details in section 3.1.3.

The standard analysis involves the movement of the verb to the Left Periphery. The intuition (Den Besten 1983, see next section 2.1.) emerges from an asymmetry between main and embedded clauses. In (3a), the verb occupies the “second position” in main clauses, whereas in (3b) the verb remains in a lower functional projection in embedded clauses. In those embedded contexts which are not introduced by an overt complementizer²² (3c, 3d), the verb moves like in main clauses:

21 Being the second element can only be referred to as a byproduct of subjacent syntactic phenomena. As already stated by different authors (Zwart 1992: 76 a.o.), grammars are not sensitive to notions like “first”

or “second”.

22 V2 structures like (3c, 3d) are allowed in embedded contexts selected by bridge verbs (cf. Poletto 2014:

6 for a similar pattern in Old Italian).

(3) a. Giotto malte dieses Fresko Giotto painted this fresco

b. Der Stadtführer sagt, dass Giotto dieses Fresko malte The tourist.guide says that Giotto this Fresco painted c. Der Stadtführer glaubt - Giotto malte dieses Fresko the tourist.guide thinks Giotto painted this Fresco

Den Besten (1983) clearly and elegantly proposed that the verb and the complementizer both compete for the same position. Thus, it was easy to analyse V2 as verb movement to a C position. The aim of this chapter is to locate the landing site of the verb within a fine-grained map of the Left Periphery.

Despite some language-specific exceptions (e.g. Cimbrian, cf. Bidese et al 2016), there are no great restrictions (Biberauer 2002) concerning the type of the first constituent before the inflected verb. The only requirement is that only one item is placed to the left of the finite verb. The quality of the fronted element can be diverse: subject DPs (4a), object DPs (4b), PPs (4c), embedded clauses (4d), higher and lower adverbs of Cinque's (1999) hierarchy (4e, 4f), bare (4g) and complex Wh-elements (4h), temporal (4i) and locative items (4j), predicates (4k), past participles (4l), experiencer DPs of impersonal psych-verbs (4m), expletives (4n), particles of particle verbs (4o), XPs which represent smaller portions of XPs (4p), big XPs conceived as only one XP containing multiple embedded XPs (4q) and big DPs (4r and it will be further discussed in section 5.3.0.2.).

(4) Standard German a. Subject

Der Travertin-Brunnen trägt das Familienwappen der Piccolomini.

The travertine.well wears the coat of arms of Piccolomini.

'The well made of travertine marble displays the coat of arms of the Piccolomini family'

b. Object

Den Beinamen ‚der Prächtige‘ erhielt Lorenzo Tha.ACC nickname “the magnificient” had Lorenzo.

'Lorenzo was known as “the magnificient”'

c. PP

Für die europäische Malerei ist Lorenzettis Regierung ein Schlüsselwerk.

For the European painting is Lorenzetti's government a key work 'Lorenzetti's government is a work of major importance’

d. CP

Wenn man Giottos Werke betrachtet, kann man immer wieder Neues When one Giotto’s works observes, can one always again new entdecken

discover

'When one observes Giotto’s works, one can always discover something new'

e. Higher Adverb in Cinque’s (1999) hierarchy

Natürlich war Perugino der Lehrmeister von Raffael Naturally was Perugino the master of Raphael 'Naturally, Perugino was the master of Raphael'

f. Lower Adverb in Cinque’s (1999) hierarchy

Schon immer habe ich mich für toskanische Malerei interessiert Always have I myself for Tuscan painting interested

‘I always found interesting Tuscan painting’

g. Bare wh, argument

Wer stahl das Caravaggios „Christi Geburt“?

Who stole the Caravaggio’s “Nativity”?

'Who did steal the “Nativity” by Caravaggio?’

h. Complex wh, non-argument

Welchen Malern ist diese Abteile des Museums gewidmet?

Which.DAT painter.DAT is this section of the museum dedicated?

‘To which painter is dedicated this section of the museum?’

i. Temporal Items

Nach 1320 kehrte Giotto nach Florenz zurück After 1320 turned Giotto to Florence back 'Giotto came back to Florence after 1320'

j. Locative Items

Auf der linken Seite befindet sich ein kleines Fresko von Sano di Pietro.

On the left side arranged self a small fresco of Sano di Pietro.

'A small fresco by Sano di Pietro is on the left side'

k. Predicative Adjective

Faszinierend ist Michelangelos David Fascinating is Michelangelo’s David

‘Michelangelo’s David is fascinating‘

l. Past Participle

Bemalt hat Signorelli nur diese Seite des Kreuzgangs Painted has Signorelli only this side of the cloister

‘Signorelli painted only this side of the cloister’

m. Experiencer DPs of impersonal psych-verbs Mir war gestern fürchterlich heiß.

Me.DAT was yesterday terribly hot 'I felt terribly hot yesterday'

(Mohr 2009: 146; 7c)

n. Expletives

Es wird vermutet, dass Giotto mit der Bemalung des Gemäuers bereits

EXPL is assumed, that Giotto the painting of the walls, already begann bevor die Kirche komplett fertiggestellt war.

started before the Church complete built was

‘It is assumed that Giotto started the painting of the walls before the Church was entirely built.’

o. Particle of Particle Verbs

An mache ich das Licht erst, wenn es ganz dunkel ist On make I the light first, if EXPL all dark is.

‘I first turn the light on, if it’s dark’

(Felfe 2012: 17)

p. smaller portion-XP

[Um zwei Millionen Mark] soll er versucht haben, [eine Versicherung __

Around two millions Deutschmark should he tried have, an insurance ___

zu betrügen]

to cheat

‘He reportedly tried to cheat an insurance (policy) for two millions Deutschmarks’

(S. Müller 2013: 4; 2 from taz 04.05.2011:20)

q. big XP

Seinen Schüler prüfen muß ein Professor nicht His.ACC Pupil to-test.INF must a Professor NEG

‘A professor should not test his student’

(S. Müller 2005: 10; 27) r. big DP

Den Mann, den habe ich gesehen The.ACC man d.ACC have I seen

(Grohmann 2000 from Roberts 2004: 317)

V1 contexts should also be considered V2 structures, because the leftmost item could be argued to be present in the configuration despite the fact that it is not phonetically overt.

Yes/No (henceforth Y/N) questions (5a) might be the result of the fronting of a non-overt Polarity Phrase (PolP, Holmberg 2015). I propose²³ a similar explanation for why questions, adopting the idea that why is base generated within the CP (in IntP as in Rizzi 2001, or in a lower CP position and moved to IntP as stated in Shlonsky & Soare 2011), in (5b). Another kind of V1 is the so-called if-inversion (or asyndetic conditionals, Breitbarth et al. 2015 inter alia), related to the English sentence-type ‘Should you require any further information, please contact us’: I propose that in (5c) the verb targets a C position (e.g. Force°). Finally, a similar structure can be proposed for Imperative (5d) sentences (cf. Henry 2002), where the verb targets Force°, the highest functional projection.

(5) Yes/No question (fronting PolP) a. War Bondone Giottos Vater?

Was Bondone Giotto’s father?

‘Was Bondone the father of Giotto?’

Why question (fronting PolP + base generation of why item) b. Warum hat Michelangelos Moses zwei Hörnchen?

Why has Michelangelo’s Moses two horns?

‘Why does Moses by Michelangelo two horns’?

If-Inversion (fronting PolP)

c. Wäre ich an deiner Stelle, hätte ich Assisi besichtiget Were I at your place, had ich Assisi visited

‘If I were at your place, I would have visited Assisi’

23 The proposal in (5) should be taken as a theory-internal driven hypothesis due to the lack of a finer cartography of co-occurring left peripheral items in the LP of German.

Imperative (fronting PolP)

d. Analysieren Sie die Farben in diesem Fresko!

Analize You the coulours in this fresko!

‘Analyze the colours in this fresko’

Other complementizers (ob ‘if’, als ‘for’, etc.) and relative operators (cf. Sanfelici et al.

2015 for a discussion on acquisition studies and an overview) create structures similar to those introduced by dass ‘that’. The only structures which show a complementizer co-occurring with verb movement are those introduced by denn ‘because/for’ (for a comparative analysis with the French puisque, see Jivanyan & Samo 2017) and es sei denn ‘unless’, in (6).

(6) a. Denn

Beile dich, denn ich habe keine Zeit Move you, because I have no time

‘Move, I have no time!’

b. Es sei denn

Wir gehen heute Abend aus, es sei denn es gießt in Strömen We go today night out, unless EXPL pours in storm

‘Tonight we go out, unless it flows’

I will not discuss weil ‘because’ in this section, as it is well known (Reis 2013; Walkden 2017) that it behaves like denn in colloquial German at least for speech-act and epistemic readings (Günthner 1996, Jivanyan & Samo 2017, section 4.2.3 of this work). Before exploring the mainstream hypotheses that aim to merge together the cartographic approach and V2, I will briefly introduce the history of V2 within Generative Grammar.

2.1. V2 in Generative Grammar and Cartography

2.1.1. A brief history of V2: from Den Besten (1983) to Haegeman (1996)

In the nearly 60-year history of Generative Grammar, a key moment concerning the analysis of V2 structures is undoubtedly the work of Den Besten (1983), whose intuition is still the basis for current theories. Let us adopt a map like (7).

(7) [CP [IP [vP]]]]

(Chomsky 1986) Instead of analysing V2 as a linear constraint, Den Besten (1983, building on Koster 1975) proposes the involvement of the C layer as the landing site of the verb in V2 languages;

in embedded contexts, the C position is already filled by a complementizer, therefore the verb cannot move higher and it remains low in the structure (3b). Similarly, and quite at the same time, Platzack (1983) hypothesized that Germanic languages (to be read V2) had a different syntactic structure, in which there is no inflection position: all the functions managed by the missing position would have been taken by the higher projection (C). He thus proposed a parameter, labelled as COMP/INFL Parameter, in which there is a unique functional projection referred to as CONFL: the movement of the verb is motivated in order to give abstract case to the subject. In embedded contexts, the position is already filled by a complementizer that carries out the function. An important role of this work is the discovery of “inflectional” features inside the domain of the CP, which are related to FinP within the current Split-CP theory (Rizzi 1997).

In her PhD dissertation, Travis (1984) proposed that subject-initial contexts should be analysed differently from non-subject initial contexts. In the former cases, the verb only moves to an inflectional functional projection within the IP/TP, while in the latter, the movement of the verb targets the C-domain. In the early ‘90s, such a proposal was the subject of a lively debate between Zwart (1992, 1997) who adopted Travis’ (1984) idea for Dutch, and Haegeman (1991b), Schwartz and Vikner (1996) who claimed that

“the verb always leaves IP” (as the title of one of the works by Schwartz & Vikner) moving to the C-domain in V2 contexts, both in subject-initial and non-subject-initial contexts. I shall return to this debate in the next chapter.

Dutch was also the first V2 language to be analysed within a split-CP perspective.

Haegeman (1996) proposed that, according to a (at that time, newborn) cartographic framework, the inflected verb moves to Fin°. This work still remains influential. I will go further into this approach in the subsection 2.2.2.

From 1996 onwards, many works attempted to analyze V2 languages following cartographic guidelines, especially Germanic languages: German, (Bayer 2012; G.

Bianchi 2012; Grewendorf 2002, 2005), Dutch (Haegeman 1996; Koopman 2010), Icelandic (Hrafnbjargarson 2004; Franco 2008), Norwegian (Westergaard, Oystein &

Lohndal 2012; Wiklund et al. 2007), Afrikaans (Biberauer 2002, 2016), Swedish (Holmberg 2015, 2016). A rich literature on Germanic varieties such as West Flemish (Guéron & Haegeman 2012; Haegeman 2008; Haegeman & Greco 2016; Haegeman &

Hill 2014), Bavarian (Grewendorf 2014, 2015), Mocheno (Cognola 2012), Cimbrian (Grewendorf & Poletto 2011, 2012; Poletto 2011; Bidese et al. 2016), Tromsø-Norwegian (Westergaard M. 2003). As for Romance languages, Rhaeto-Romance (Poletto 2002;

Casalicchio & Cognola 2014). Finally, on Medieval Romance (Benincà 2006; Poletto 2014; Wolfe 2015) and Early Germanic (Axel 2007; Walkden 2014). In the next sub-section, I turn to a review of the mainstream (cartographic) analyses for V2 languages.

2.1.2. From Haegeman (1996) onwards: Theoretical foundation of the mainstream analyses of V2

Mainstream analyses of V2 observe V2 “as a systematic requirement that the finite verb raise into the C-layer and that this movement be accompanied by merger of a phrasal constituent in the C-layer” (Wolfe 2017), as listed in (8).

(8) Properties of V2 (Holmberg 2015)

(a) A functional head in the left periphery attracts the finite verb;

(b) This functional head requires a constituent moved to its specifier position.

The property in (8b) is considered to be an Edge Feature (EF)²⁴ , which is built of a generalized EPP feature (Roberts and Roussou 2002 following Chomsky 2000 built on

24 Chomsky (2005) proposes that all merge operations are driven by features he calls Edge Features. These features are uninterpretable but, unlike other uninterpretable features, are undeletable.

Chomsky 1982:10), as proposed in Roberts (2004). In a similar direction, Ledgeway (2008: 439) observed that “V2 is not understood as a superficial descriptive label, but as a syntactic constraint which requires the finite verb in root clauses to raise to the otherwise vacant C position”. In other words, V2 seems to be the result of a non-criterial²⁵ head²⁶ movement which is absolutely required in these languages. Such a conclusion has the consequence that the fronted XP moves to the LP because of general requirements and not because it is triggered by scope-discourse semantics features, as it is expected under the guide lines of the Cartography of Syntactic Structures as previously stated in Chapter 1.

Mainstream analyses agree with Den Besten’s (1983) intuition and the framework of a split-CP perspective (Rizzi 1997) and adopt a FrameP layer higher than Force and without a TopicP position lower than Focus, as in (9):

(9) [Frame [Force [Top [Foc [Fin]]]]]

Mainstream analyses of V2 are in line with Haegeman (1996), in proposing that the EF is expressed in Fin°, the lowest head of the CP domain.

25 I will avoid to use the term formal movement. I will refer to this movement as non criterial, namely a movement which is not triggered by criteria.

26 In this work, I will not discuss, putting aside this footnote, the analysis of V2 as a result of a phrasal movement (Koopman and Szalbocsi 2000; Mahajan 2003; Nilsen 2003; Müller G. 2004). According to such approach, the verb moves to the CP within an XP containing the verb and exactly one specifier (Wiklund et al. 2007: 205, 219). Nilsen (2003) proposed that the Verb Second is the result of a remnant movement (movement of a constituent with a trace inside) of an XP, labelled ΣP (Nilsen 2003: 109). This phrase is an XP that dominates VP into which the verb finite always moves; then, this XP containing the finite verb and one specifier moves to SpecFinP prior that an another constituent is fronted to a higher position, namely, according to Nilsen (2003: 83), the position of SpecTopP. The reasons that led Nilsen to propose this phrasal movement were actually some surface violations of the V2 in Mainland Scandinavian and the well-known Holmberg Generalization, namely the fact that the object as a pronoun moves only if the verb moves (Roberts 2007: 55). Such weak pronouns (Nilsen 2003: 122) and the adverbs do not move of their own, but within the fronted ΣP. Wiklund et al. (2007) discussed certain differences in verb movement between some varieties of Norwegian and Icelandic, concluding that these languages differ in the element pied-piped within the phrase with the verb. Wiklund and collaborators' analysis differ from Nilsen's in a few ways: firstly, the verb movement to the CP domain is a movement of a remnant vP containing the verb and at least and at most one specifier (Wiklund et al. 2007: 223) instead of a phrase whose head is Σ; secondly, Nilsen assumes that ΣP always attracts the element that carries a topic feature to its Specifier prior to movement, whereas in Wiklund et al., the fronting of the XP is restricted only to non-subject cases; finally, Nilsen assumes that the finite verb is attracted to Σ, but this idea is considered not necessary by Wiklund and others. Furthermore, the main problem with such an assumption is in terms of complexity. Actually, the idea that remnant movement can be considered the standard value for V2 movement clashes with the economy principle and with the fact that every movement, considered as ''last resort'', needs to be triggered and justified; furthermore, Chomsky (2001: 15) claims that "there is mounting evidence that the design of FL reduces computational complexity''.

More than twenty years of studies have shown that V2 languages do not behave as a homogenous group. A subset of V2 languages (Benincà 1995), e.g. most of Medieval Romance languages (Wolfe 2015) varieties, allowed a restricted class of sentences in which the inflected verb was not in the second linear position, but in the third or the fourth position and so on, as in the following examples.

(10) a. Old Sicilian

[tamen poy di la morti loru], [li ossa loru] [pir virtuti divina] operannu then after of the death their the bones their by virtue divine perform.3P miraculi

miracles

‘Then after their death, their bones perform miracles through divine virtue’

(Wolfe 2015: 16; 4 from Libru de lu dialagu di Sanctu Gregoriu 1301-1350; 262)

b. Old Occitan

[Cascun jom], [aquist verge] annet de ben en miels each day this virgin go.3s.PST of well on better

‘Each day the virgin kept getting better and better’

(Wolfe 2015: 72; 12a from La vie de Sainte Douceline 1200s; 240)

c. Old Italian

Et [dall’altra parte] [Aiaces] era uno cavaliere franco And on.the other side Ajax was a knight courageous

‘On the other hand Ajax was a brave warrior)

(Poletto 2014: 16; 20 from Rettorica 94) d. Old Spanish

[para que vos sepades esto], [mucho] querria que…

for that you know.2s.SBJT this much want.1s.COND that

‘So that you know this, I would like very much that…’

(Wolfe 2015: 121; 26 from Libro de los ejemplos del conde Lucanor y de Patronio 1335; 181)

e. Old French

[As pez le abét] [mercit] atent at-the feet the priest forgiveness await.3s

‘At the feet of the priest, he is asking for forgiveness’

(Mathieu 2012 from Le voyage de Saint-Brandan, year ~1120, 338)

Such evidence led authors to propose a typology of V2 languages, which will be presented in the next section. In the next chapters, I will not discuss Old Romance and Old Germanic V2 languages, but I will only focus on contemporary varieties.

Such evidence led authors to propose a typology of V2 languages, which will be presented in the next section. In the next chapters, I will not discuss Old Romance and Old Germanic V2 languages, but I will only focus on contemporary varieties.

Dans le document A criterial approach to the cartography of V2 (Page 49-0)