Advertisement

V-to-I and V2 in subordinate clauses: an investigation of Faroese in relation to Icelandic and Danish

  • Caroline HeycockEmail author
  • Antonella Sorace
  • Zakaris Svabo Hansen
Original Paper

Abstract

In this article we investigate the status of two different types of movement in subordinate clauses in Faroese: the movement of the finite verb to a position below the subject but above negation and medial adverbs (V-to-I), and the movement of some XP and the finite verb to positions above the subject (V2). The exact status of these phenomena in contemporary Faroese, a language that has been argued to be undergoing syntactic change, is a matter of dispute; we attempt to clarify this using the methodology of Magnitude Estimation (ME). We extend what is known by presenting the results of a systematic comparison of judgment data from Icelandic (where the finite verb obligatorily moves to a high position within the clause, and embedded V2 has been claimed to be possible quite generally), Danish (where the finite verb obligatorily remains in a low position, and embedded V2 has been claimed to be restricted), and Faroese (where the status of verb movement is precisely at issue, and the availability of embedded V2 has been little explored).

Keywords

Danish Faroese Icelandic Verb-movement Verb-second 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

10828_2010_9035_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (101 kb)
(PDF 101 KB)

References

  1. Andersson, L.-G. 1975. Form and function of subordinate clauses. PhD thesis, University of Göteborg.Google Scholar
  2. Angantýsson, Á. 2001. Skandinavísk orðaröð í íslenskum aukasetningum. Íslenskt má l 23:95–122.Google Scholar
  3. Angantýsson, Á. 2007. Verb-third in embedded clauses in Icelandic. Studia Linguistica 61(3):237–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bard, E., D. Robertson, and A. Sorace. 1996. Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language 72:32–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barnes, M. 1992. Faroese syntax—achievements, goals and problems. The Nordic Languages and Modern Linguistics 7:17–37.Google Scholar
  6. Barnes, M. 2001. Faroese language studies. Number 5 in Studia Nordica. Tórshavn and Oslo: Føroya Fróðskaparfelag and Novus forlag.Google Scholar
  7. Barnes, M., and E. Weyhe. 1994. Faroese. In The Germanic languages, eds. E. König and J. van der Auwera, 190–218. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Bentzen, K., 2005. What’s the better move? On verb placement in standard and Northern Norwegian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 28(2):153–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bentzen, K., 2007a. The degree of verb movement in embedded clauses in three varieties of Norwegian. Nordlyd (Tromsø Working Papers in Language and Linguistics) 34:127–146.Google Scholar
  10. Bentzen, K., 2007b. Kronoby revisited: Verb movement in embedded non-V2 contexts in Northern Ostrobothnian. Nordlyd (Tromsø Working Papers in Language and Linguistics) 35.Google Scholar
  11. Bentzen, K., 2007c. Order and structure in embedded clauses in Northern Norwegian. PhD thesis, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
  12. Bentzen, K., P. Garbacz, C. Heycock, and G.H. Hrafnbjargarson. 2009. On variation in Faroese verb placement. Ms., University of Tromsø, University of Lund, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  13. Bentzen, K., G.H. Hrafnbjargarson, Þ. Hróarsdóttir, and A.-L. Wiklund. 2007. The Tromsø guide to the force behind V2. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 79:93–118.Google Scholar
  14. Bhatt, R., and J. Yoon. 1991. On the composition of COMP and parameters of V2. In Proceedings of WCCFL 10, 41–52. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  15. Bobaljik, J. 1999. Adverbs: The hierarchy paradox. GLOT International 4:27–28.Google Scholar
  16. Bobaljik, J. 2002. Realizing Germanic inflection: Why morphology does not drive syntax. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 6(2):129–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bobaljik, J., and H. Thráinsson. 1998. Two heads aren’t always better than one. Syntax 1(1):37–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cinque, G. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. de Haan, G. 2001. More is going on upstairs than downstairs. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 4:3–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. den Besten, H. 1983. On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules. In On the formal syntax of the Westgermania, ed. W. Abraham, 47–131. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Draft version circulated in 1977.Google Scholar
  21. Falk, C. 1993. Non-referential subjects in the history of Swedish. PhD thesis, University of Lund.Google Scholar
  22. Featherston, S. 2005. Magnitude estimation and what it can do for your syntax: Some wh-constraints in German. Lingua 115:1525–1550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gärtner, H.-M. 2003. How Icelandic can you be, if you speak Icelandic B? In Festschrift for Christer Platzack, Volume II of Grammar in Focus, eds. L.-O. Delsing, C. Falk, G. Josefsson, and H. Sigurðsson, 115–122. Department of Scandinavian Languages, Lund University.Google Scholar
  24. Gregersen, F., and I.L. Pedersen. 1997. Hovedsætningsordstilling i underordnede sætninger. Dansk folkemål 39:55–112.Google Scholar
  25. Haegeman, L. 2002. Anchoring to speaker, adverbial clauses and the structure of CP. In Georgetown university working papers in theoretical linguistics Vol. 2, eds. S. Mauck and J. Mittelstaedt, 117–180. Washington: Georgetown University.Google Scholar
  26. Haegeman, L. 2003a. Conditional clauses: External and internal syntax. Mind and Language 18:317–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Haegeman, L. 2003b. Notes on long adverbial fronting in English and the left periphery. Linguistic Inquiry 34:640–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hagström, B. 1967. Ändelsevokalerna i färöiskan. En fonetisk-fonologisk studie. Stockholm Studies in Scandinavian Philology 6.Google Scholar
  29. Håkansson, G., and S. Dooley-Collberg. 1994. The preference for modal + neg: An L2 perspective applied to Swedish L1 children. Second Language Research 10:95–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Heycock, C. 2006. Embedded root phenomena. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, Vol. II, Chapter 23, eds. M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk, 174–209. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Heycock, C., A. Alderson, J. Brennan, G. Fischer, V. Gall, N. Gregoire, T. Juvonen, T. Kelly, S. Kruss, J. Pope, and S. Sanchez-Romero. 2003. Verb movement and the Philosopher’s Stone. Ms., University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  32. Heycock, C., and A. Sorace. 2007. Verb movement in Faroese: New perspectives on an old problem. Nordlyd (Tromsø Working Papers in Language and Linguistics) 35.Google Scholar
  33. Heycock, C., A. Sorace, Z.S. Hansen, and F. Wilson. 2009. Rediscovering an auxiliary/main verb distinction in Scandinavian children. Paper presented at GALA 2009.Google Scholar
  34. Holmberg, A., and C. Platzack. 1991. On the role of inflection in Scandinavian syntax. In Issues in Germanic syntax, eds. W. Abraham, W. Kosmeijer, and E. Reuland, 93–118. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  35. Holmberg, A., and C. Platzack. 1995. The role of inflection in the syntax of the Scandinavian Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Hooper, J., and S. Thompson. 1973. On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4(4):465–499.Google Scholar
  37. Hróarsdóttir, Þ., A.-L. Wiklund, K. Bentzen, and G.H. Hrafnbjargarson. 2007. The afterglow of verb movement. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 80:45–75.Google Scholar
  38. Jonas, D. 1996. Clause structure and verb syntax in Scandinavian and English. PhD thesis, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  39. Jónsson, J.G. 1996. Clausal architecture and case in Icelandic. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  40. Julien, M. 2007. Embedded V2 in Norwegian and Swedish. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 80:103–161.Google Scholar
  41. Keller, F. 2000. Gradience in grammar: Experimental and computational aspects of degrees of grammaticality. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  42. Keller, F., M. Corley, S. Corley, L. Konieczny, and A. Todirascu. 1998. WebExp: A Java toolbox for web-based psychological experiments. Technical Report HCRC/TR-99. Technical report, Human Communication Research Centre, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  43. Keller, F., S. Gunasekharan, N. Mayo, and M. Corley. 2009. Timing accuracy of web experiments: A case study using the WebExp software package. Behavior Research Methods 41(1):1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Koeneman, O. 2000. The flexible nature of verb movement. PhD thesis, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  45. Kroch, A. 1989. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change 1(3):199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kroch, A. 2001. Syntactic change. In The Handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, eds. M. Baltin and C. Collins, 629–739. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  47. Kühl, K.H., and H.P. Petersen. 2009. Converging verbal phrases in related languages: A case study from Faro-Danish and Danish-German language contact situations. In Convergence and divergence in language contact situations. Hamburg studies on multilingualism Vol. 8, eds. K. Braunmüller and J. House, 101–124. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  48. Lockwood, W.B. 1977. An introduction to modern Faroese. Tórshavn: Føroya Skúlabókagrunnur (First published in 1955, reprinted in 2002).Google Scholar
  49. Meinunger, A. 2004. Verb position, verbal mood, and the anchoring (potential) of sentences. In The syntax and semantics of the left periphery, eds. H. Lohnstein and S. Trissler, 313–341. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  50. Meinunger, A. 2006. On the discourse impact of subordinate clauses. In The architecture of focus, Volume 82 of Studies in generative grammar, eds. V. Molnár and S. Winklerpp, 459–487. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  51. Nilsen, Ø. 2003. Eliminating positions: Syntax and semantics of sentential modification. PhD thesis, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
  52. Ottósson, K. 1989. VP-specifier subjects and the CP/IP distinction in Icelandic and Mainland Scandinavian. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 44:89–100.Google Scholar
  53. Pedersen, I.L. 1996. Der kan jo være nogen der kan itte tåle det. Om hovedsætningsordstilling i bisætninger. In Studier i talesprogsvariation og sprogkontakt, eds. B.J. Nielsen and I.L. Pedersen, 242–251. Copenhagen: Reitzel.Google Scholar
  54. Petersen, H.P. 2000. IP or TP in modern Faroese. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 66:75–83.Google Scholar
  55. Platzack, C. 1988. The emergence of a word order difference in Scandinavian subordinate clauses. In McGill Working Papers in Linguistics, special issue on comparative Germanic syntax. Google Scholar
  56. Platzack, C., and A. Holmberg. 1989. The role of Agr and finiteness in Germanic VO languages. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 43:51–76.Google Scholar
  57. Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20.3:365–424.Google Scholar
  58. Roberts, I. 1999. Verb movement and markedness. In Language creation and language change, Chapter 10, ed. M. DeGraff, 287–327. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  59. Rögnvaldsson, E., and H. Thráinsson. 1990. On Icelandic word order once more. In Modern Icelandic Syntax, eds. J. Maling and A. Zaenen, Number 24 in Syntax and Semantics. Orlando: Academic.Google Scholar
  60. Rohrbacher, B. 1999. Morphology-driven Syntax: A Theory of V to I Raising and pro-Drop, Volume 15 of Linguistik Aktuell. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  61. Sandqvist, C. 1981. Några karakteristiska drag in Heðin Brús språk. Bókatíðindi 1:19–32.Google Scholar
  62. Schwartz, B., and S. Vikner 1990. All verb second clauses are CPs. In Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 43, 27–49.Google Scholar
  63. Sorace, A. 2010. Magnitude estimation in language acquisition research. In Experimental Methods in Language Acquisition, eds. S. Unsworth and E. Blom. Amsterdam: Benjamins (in press).Google Scholar
  64. Sprouse, J. 2007. A program for experimental syntax: Finding the relationship between acceptability and grammatical knowledge. PhD thesis, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
  65. Stevens, S.S. 1957. On the psychophysical law. Psychological Review 64:153–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Stevens, S.S. 1971. Issues in psychophysical measurement. Psychological Review 78:426–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Stevens, S.S. 1975. Psychophysics: Introduction to its perceptual, neural, and social prospects. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  68. Sundquist, J.D. 2002. Morphosyntactic change in the history of the mainland Scandinavian languages. PhD thesis, Indiana University.Google Scholar
  69. Sundquist, J.D. 2003. The rich agreement hypothesis and Early Modern Danish embedded-clause word order. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 26(2):233–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Thráinsson, H. 1996. On the (non)-universality of functional projections. In Minimal Ideas, eds. W. Abraham, S. Epstein, H. Thráinsson, and J.-W. Zwart, 253–281. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  71. Thráinsson, H. 2003. Syntactic variation, historical development, and minimalism. In Minimalist syntax, Chapter 4, ed. R. Hendrick, 152–191. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Thráinsson, H., H.P. Petersen, J. í Lon Jacobsen, and Z.S. Hansen. 2004. Faroese: An Overview and Reference Grammar. Tórshavn: Faroese Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  73. Vikner, S. 1994. Finite verb movement in Scandinavian embedded clauses. In Verb movement, eds. D. Lightfoot and N. Hornstein, 117–147. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Vikner, S. 1995. Verb movement and expletive subjects in the Germanic languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Vikner, S. 1997. V0-to-I0 movement and inflection for person in all tenses. In The new comparative syntax, Chapter 8, ed. L. Haegeman, 189–213. Edinburgh: Longman.Google Scholar
  76. Waldmann, C. 2008. Input och Output: Ordföljd i svenska barns huvudsatser och bisatser. PhD thesis, Lund University.Google Scholar
  77. Westergaard, M., and K. Bentzen 2007. The (non)effect of input frequency on the acquisition of word order in Norwegian embedded clauses. In Frequency effects in language acquisition: Defining the limits of frequency as an explanatory concept, Studies on Language Acquisition, eds. I. Gülzow and N. Gagarina, 271–306. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  78. Weyhe, E. 1996. Bendingarmunur í føroyskum málførum. Íslenskt má l 18:71–118.Google Scholar
  79. Wiklund, A.-L., K. Bentzen, G.H. Hrafnbjargarson, and Þ. Hróarsdóttir 2009. On the distribution and illocution of V2 in Scandinavian that-clauses. Lingua. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.03.006.Google Scholar
  80. Wiklund, A.-L., G.H. Hrafnbjargarson, K. Bentzen, and Þ. Hróarsdóttir 2007. Rethinking Scandinavian verb movement. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 10:203–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Caroline Heycock
    • 1
    Email author
  • Antonella Sorace
    • 1
    • 2
  • Zakaris Svabo Hansen
    • 3
  1. 1.Linguistics & English Language, School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language SciencesUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK
  2. 2.CASTL, Faculty of Humanities, Social Sciences and EducationUniversity of TromsøTromsøNorway
  3. 3.Føroyamálsdeildin, Fróðskaparsetur Føroya, V. U. Hammershaimbs gøta 16TórshavnFaroe Islands

Personalised recommendations