Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T01:01:31.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 16 - The Placement of Finite Verbs

from Part III - Syntax

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2020

By
Sten Vikner
Edited by
Michael T. Putnam  and
B. Richard Page
Michael T. Putnam
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
B. Richard Page
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
Get access

Summary

The chapter gives an overview of the possible positions of finite verbs across the Germanic languages. These possibilities are shown to depend on three independent choices related to three different parts of the clause, CP, TP, and VP:

  1. (1) If the language is a verb second (V2) language, the finite verb in every main clause moves to C°.

  2. (2) If the language has V°-to-T° movement, the finite verb in every clause moves to T° (but if the clause is a V2 clause, then the finite verb will move on from T° to C°).

  3. (3) Finally, depending on whether a language is verb-object (VO) or object-verb (OV), the finite verb in every clause will occur either preceding or following all other elements inside VP, e.g., objects, other complements, adverbials (provided the verb has not undergone movement to T° or to C°).

Keywords

finite verbCPTPVPverb second ‘V2’embedded V2V°-to-T° movementrich agreement hypothesis ‘RAH’verb-object ‘VO’object-verb ‘OV’
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics , pp. 365 - 388
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alexiadou, A. and Fanselow, G. 2002. “On the correlation between morphology and syntax: The case of V-to-I.” In Zwart, J-W. and Abraham, W. (eds.), Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 219–242.Google Scholar
Angantýsson, Á. 2011. The Syntax of Embedded Clauses in Icelandic and Related Languages. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Iceland.Google Scholar
Bentzen, K., Hrafnbjargarson, G. H., Hróarsdóttir, T., and Wiklund, A-L. 2007. “The Tromsø guide to the Force behind V2,” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 79: 93–118.Google Scholar
Besten, H. den 1983. “On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules.” In Abraham, W. (ed.), On the Formal Syntax of the Westgermania. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 47–131. Reprinted 1989 in H. den Besten (ed.), Studies in West Germanic Syntax. Amsterdam: Rodopi: 14–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besten, H. den 1986. “Decidability in the syntax of verbs of (not necessarily) West-Germanic languages,” Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 28: 232–256. Reprinted 1989 in H. den Besten (ed.), Studies in West Germanic Syntax. Amsterdam: Rodopi: 137–160.Google Scholar
Besten, H. den and Walraven, C. Moed-van 1986. “The syntax of verbs in Yiddish.” In Haider, H. and Prinzhorn, M. (eds.), Verb Second Phenomena in Germanic Languages. Dordrecht: Foris: 111–135.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2010. “Subjects, tense and verb-movement.” In Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I., and Sheehan, M (eds.), Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory. Cambridge University Press: 263–303.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, J. 2003. “Realising Germanic inflection: Why morphology does not drive syntax,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 6: 129–16.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, J. and Thráinsson, H 1998. “Two heads aren’t always better than one,” Syntax 1.1: 37–71.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Davis, N. (ed.) 1971. Paston Letters and Papers of the Fifteenth Century. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Diesing, M. 1997. “Yiddish VP order and the typology of object movement in Germanic,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15.2: 369–427.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, P. 1998. Grundriß der deutschen Grammatik I: Das Wort. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. 1978. “The verbal complex of V’-V in French,” Linguistic Inquiry 9: 151–175.Google Scholar
Fischer, O., van Kemenade, A., Koopman, W., and van der Wurff, W. 2001. The Syntax of Early English. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fourquet, J. 1938. L’Ordre des éléments de la phrase germanique ancien – Etudes de syntaxe de position. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Frascarelli, M. and Hinterhölzl, R. 2007. “Types of topics in German and Italian.” In Schwabe, K. and Winkler, S. (eds.), On Information Structure, Meaning and Form: Generalizations across Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 87–116.Google Scholar
Garbacz, P. 2010. Word Order in Övdalian. A Study in Variation and Change. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Lund.Google Scholar
Geilfuß, J. 1991. “Jiddisch als SOV-Sprache,” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 9.1/2: 170–183. Also published in 1991 in Working Papers of Sonderforschungsbereich 340 (Universities of Stuttgart and Tübingen) 11: 3–17.Google Scholar
Grewendorf, G. 1990. “Verb-Bewegung und Negation im Deutschen,” Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 20: 57–125.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 2001. “Antisymmetry and verb-final order in West Flemish,” The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 3: 207–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haider, H. 1997a. “Extraposition.” In Beerman, D., LeBlanc, D., and van Riemsdijk, H (eds.), Rightward Movement. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 115–151.Google Scholar
Haider, H. 1997b. “Precedence among predicates,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 1.1: 3–41.Google Scholar
Haider, H. 2005. “How to turn German into Icelandic – and derive the VO-OV contrasts,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 8: 1–53.Google Scholar
Haider, H. 2010. The Syntax of German. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haider, H. 2013. Symmetry Breaking in Syntax. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haider, H. 2015. “Head directionality – in syntax and morphology.” In Fábregas, A., Mateu, J., and Putnam, M. T. (eds.), Contemporary Linguistic Parameters. London: Bloomsbury Academic: 73–97.Google Scholar
Hall, B. 1979. “Accounting for Yiddish word order, or what’s a nice NP like you doing in a place like this?” In Meisel, J. and Pam, M. (eds.), Linear Order and Generative Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 253–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harbour, D. 2016. “Parameters of poor pronoun systems,” Linguistic Inquiry 47.4: 706–722.Google Scholar
Heycock, C., Sorace, A., Hansen, Z. S., Vikner, S., and Wilson, F. 2012. “Detecting the late stages of syntactic change: The loss of V-to-T in Faroese,” Language 88.3: 558–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heycock, C. and Sundquist, J. 2017. “Don’t rush to rehabilitate: A remark on Koeneman and Zeijlstra 2014,” Linguistic Inquiry 48.1: 173–179.Google Scholar
Heycock, C. and Wallenberg, J. 2013. “How variational acquisition drives syntactic change – The loss of verb movement in Scandinavian,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 16: 127–157.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A. 2010. “Parameters in minimalist theory: The case of Scandinavian,” Theoretical Linguistics 36.1: 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, A. 2015. “Verb second.” In Kiss, T. and Alexiadou, A. (eds.), Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Research, 2nd edn. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter: 343–384.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A. (in press). “On the bottleneck hypothesis of V2 in Swedish.” In Biberauer, T., Wolfe, S., and Woods, R. (eds.), Rethinking Verb Second. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hrafnbjargarson, G. H. and Wiklund, A-L., 2010. “AGR and V2,” Theoretical Linguistics 36: 57–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Julien, M. 2015. “The force of V2 revisited,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 18.2: 139–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koeneman, O. and Zeijlstra, H. 2014. “The rich agreement hypothesis rehabilitated,” Linguistic Inquiry 45.4: 571–615.Google Scholar
Levander, L. 1909. Älvdalsmålet i Dalarna. Stockholm: P. A. Norstedt and Söner.Google Scholar
Levander, L. 1925. Dalmålet: Beskrivning och historia, Vol. 1. Uppsala, Sweden: Appelbergs noktryckeri.Google Scholar
Nyvad, A. M., Christensen, K. R., and Vikner, S. 2017. “CP-recursion in Danish: A cP/CP-analysis,” The Linguistic Review 34.3: 449–477.Google Scholar
Platzack, C. 1985. “A survey of generative analyses of the Verb Second phenomenon in Germanic,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 8.1: 49–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platzack, C. and Holmberg, A. 1989. “The Role of AGR and finiteness,” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 43: 51–76.Google Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. “Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP,” Linguistic Inquiry 20.3: 365–424.Google Scholar
Rohrbacher, B. 1999. Morphology-driven syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sadock, J. 1998. “A vestige of verb final syntax in Yiddish,” Monatshefte für deutschsprachige Literatur und Kultur 90: 220–226.Google Scholar
Santorini, B. 1993. “Jiddish als gemischte OV/VO-Sprache.” In Abraham, W., and, Bayer, J. (eds.), Dialektsyntax, Sonderheft 5, Linguistische Berichte. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag: 230–245.Google Scholar
Sprouse, R. 1998. “Some notes on the relationship between inflectional morphology and parameter setting in first and second languages acquisition.” In Beck, M-L. (ed.), Morphology and Its Interfaces in Second Language Knowledge. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 41–67.Google Scholar
Thiersch, C. 1978. Topics in German Syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, H. 2010. “Predictable and unpredictable sources of variable verb and adverb placement in Scandinavian,” Lingua 120: 1062–1088.Google Scholar
Trosterud, T. 1989. “The null subject parameter and the new mainland Scandinavian word order: A possible counter example from a Norwegian dialect.” In J. Niemi (ed.), Papers from the 11th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics 1: 87–100.Google Scholar
Venås, K. 1977. Hallingmålet. Oslo: Det Norske Samlaget.Google Scholar
Vikner, S. 1995. Verb movement and expletive subjects in the Germanic languages. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vikner, S. 1997. “V°-to-I° movement and inflection for person in all tenses.” In Haegeman, L. (ed.), The New Comparative Syntax. London: Longman: 189–213. www.hum.au.dk/engelsk/engsv/papers/vikn97b.pdf.Google Scholar
Vikner, S. 1999. “V°-til-I°Flytning og personfleksion i alle tempora,” Islenskt mál 19: 81–128. www.hum.au.dk/engelsk/engsv/papers/vikn99b.pdf.Google Scholar
Vikner, S. 2001a. “Predicative adjective agreement.” In Adamzik, K. and Christen, H. (eds.), Sprachkontakt, Sprachvergleich, Sprachvariation: Festschrift für Gottfried Kolde. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag: 399–414. www.hum.au.dk/engelsk/engsv/papers/vikn01b.pdfGoogle Scholar
Vikner, S. 2001b. Verb Movement Variation in Germanic and Optimality Theory. Habilitationsschrift, University of Tübingen. www.hum.au.dk/engelsk/engsv/papers/viknhabi.pdf.Google Scholar
Vikner, S. 2003. “Null objects under coordination in Yiddish and Scandinavian.” In Delsing, L-O., Falk, C., Josefsson, G., and Sigurðsson, H. Á., (eds.), Grammar in Focus: Festschrift for Christer Platzack, Vol. II. Dept. of Scandinavian Languages, University of Lund: 365–375. www.hum.au.dk/engelsk/engsv/papers/vikn03a.pdfGoogle Scholar
Vikner, S. 2005. “Immobile complex verbs in Germanic,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 8: 83–115. www.hum.au.dk/engelsk/engsv/papers/vikn05b.pdf.Google Scholar
Wackernagel, J. 1892. “Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung,” Indogermanische Forschungen 1: 333–436.Google Scholar
Walkden, G. 2017. “Language contact and V3 in Germanic varieties new and old,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 20: 49–81.Google Scholar
Wallenberg, J. 2009. Antisymmetry and the Conservation of C-Command: Scrambling and Phrase Structure in Synchronic and Diachronic Perspective. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Wallenberg, J. 2012. “Language acquisition in German and phrase structure change in Yiddish.” In Galves, C., Cyrino, S., Lopes, R., Sandalo, F., and Avelar, J. (eds.), Parameter Theory and Linguistic Change. Oxford University Press: 60–76.Google Scholar
Wallenberg, J. 2013. “Scrambling, LF, and phrase structure change in Yiddish,” Lingua 133: 289–318.Google Scholar
Webelhuth, G. 1992. Principles and Parameters of Syntactic Saturation. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×