Advertisement

Language contact and V3 in Germanic varieties new and old

  • George Walkden
Open Access
Original Paper

Abstract

Certain recently-attested varieties of Germanic V2 languages are known to deviate from the strict V2 requirement characteristic of the standard. This is the case, for example, for Kiezdeutsch, a new German dialect, as well as urban vernacular varieties of Danish, Norwegian and Swedish: descriptively speaking, in these varieties, subject-verb inversion may be absent under certain well-defined conditions. In this article I outline those conditions and the type of syntactic analysis required to account for them, claiming that an articulated left periphery is needed to account for the findings. The similarity of the V3 patterns found in these new varieties, which are geographically isolated from each other but which share a characterization in terms of the demographics of their speaker groups, invites a diachronic account in terms of language contact. I argue that transfer cannot account for V3, but that a scenario of sequential simplification and complexification is able to do so. Finally, turning to Old English, which exhibits similar (though not identical) V2/V3 alternations, I argue that a similar synchronic analysis can be upheld and that its diachronic origins may well also have been similar—a case of using the present to inform our approach to the past.

Keywords

Language contact Verb-second Verb-third New Germanic varieties Old English 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This material was presented at the \(16{{\rm{th}}}\) International Diachronic Generative Syntax Conference, Budapest, July 2014, and at the Workshop on Traces of History, Oslo, March 2015, and I am grateful to audiences there for their feedback, especially Hezekiah Akiva Bacovcin, Theresa Biberauer, Federica Cognola, Tolli Eyþórsson, Tony Kroch, Ian Roberts, and Elly van Gelderen. This article has benefited from the comments of three anonymous reviewers for The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, and of Associate Editor Jim Wood. Special thanks go to Heike Wiese for help with KiDKo and constructive criticisms of an earlier draft. None of these people necessarily agrees with anything I have to say in this article.

References

  1. Abraham, Werner. 1993. Null subjects in the history of German: From IP to CP. Lingua 89: 117–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aelbrecht, Lobke, Liliane Haegeman, and Rachel Nye. 2012. Main clause phenomena and the privilege of the root. In Main clause phenomena: New horizons, ed. Lobke Aelbrecht, Liliane Haegeman, and Rachel Nye, 1–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antomo, Mailin, and Markus Steinbach. 2010. Desintegration und Interpretation: ‘Weil’-V2-Sätze an der Schnittstelle zwischen Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 29: 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aoun, Joseph E., Elabbas Benmamoun, and Lina Choueiri. 2010. The syntax of Arabic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Appel, René, and Pieter Muysken. 1987. Language contact and bilingualism. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  6. Axel, Katrin. 2007. Studies on Old High German syntax: Left sentence periphery, verb placement and verb-second. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bech, Kristin. 1998. Pragmatic factors in language change: XVS and XSV clauses in Old and Middle English. Folia Linguistica Historica 19: 79–102.Google Scholar
  9. Bech, Kristin. 2001. Word order patterns in Old and Middle English: A syntactic and pragmatic study. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Bergen.Google Scholar
  10. Benincà, Paola, and Cecilia Poletto. 2004. Topic, focus, and V2: Defining the CP sublayers. In The cartography of syntactic structures: The structure of CP and IP, vol. 2, ed. Luigi Rizzi, 52–75. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Biberauer, Theresa, Anders Holmberg, and Ian Roberts. 2014. A syntactic universal and its consequences. Linguistic Inquiry 45: 169–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Biberauer, Theresa, and Ian Roberts. 2015. The clausal hierarchy, features, and parameters. In The cartography of syntactic structures: Beyond functional sequence, vol. 10, ed. Ur Shlonsky, 295–313. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bobaljik, Jonathan, and Höskuldur Thráinsson. 1998. Two heads aren’t always better than one. Syntax 1: 37–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bolander, Maria. 1988a. Is there any order? On word order in Swedish learner language. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 9: 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bolander, Maria. 1988b. Nu ja hoppas inte så mycke: Om inversion och placering av negation och adverb i svenska som andraspråk. In Första symposiet om svenska som andraspråk: Föredrag om språk, språkinlärning och interaktion, vol. 1, ed. Kenneth Hyltenstam and Inger Lindberg, 203–214. Stockholm: Stockholm University Centre for Research on Bilingualism.Google Scholar
  16. Branigan, Phil. 2005. The phase-theoretic basis for subject-verb inversion. Ms., Memorial University.Google Scholar
  17. Breul, Carsten. 2004. Focus structure in generative grammar: An integrated syntactic, semantic and intonational approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Canale, W. Michael. 1978. Word order change in Old English: Base reanalysis in generative grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
  19. Chafe, Wallace. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Subject and topic, ed. Charles N. Li, 27–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  20. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on Minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–156. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Chomsky, Noam. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Clahsen, Harald. 1984. The acquisition of German word order: A test case for cognitive approaches to L2 development. In Second languages: A cross-linguistic perspective, ed. Roger Andersen, 219–242. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  24. Clahsen, Harald, and Pieter Muysken. 1986. The availability of universal grammar to adult and child learners: A study of the acquisition of German word order. Second Language Research 2: 93–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cognola, Federica. 2013. Syntactic variation and verb second: A German dialect in Northern Italy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cormany, Ed. 2015. Changes in Friulano subject clitics: Conflationand interactions with the left periphery. In Syntax over time: Lexical, morphological, and information–structural interactions, ed. Theresa Biberauer and George Walkden, 249–264. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Crain, Stephen, Takuya Goro, and Rosalind Thornton. 2006. Language acquisition is language change. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 35: 31–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. de Cuba, Carlos. 2006. Embedded verb-second in Swedish, \(c\)P and intensionality. In Stony Brook occasional papers in linguistics: Intensionality and sentential complementation, vol. 1, ed. Tomoko Kawamura, Yunju Suh, and Richard K. Larson, 2–21. New York: Stony Brook University.Google Scholar
  29. de Haan, Germen J., and Fred Weerman. 1986. Finiteness and verb fronting in Frisian. In Verb second phenomena in Germanic languages, ed. Hubert Haider and Martin Prinzhorn, 77–110. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  30. den Besten, Hans. 1977. On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive verbs. Ms, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  31. Erguvanlı, Eser Emine. 1984. The function of word order in Turkish grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  32. Evers, Arnold. 1981. Verb-second movement rules. Wiener Linguistische Gazette 26: 15–34.Google Scholar
  33. Eyþórsson, Þórhallur. 1995. Verbal syntax in the early Germanic languages. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  34. Fanselow, Gisbert. 2003. Münchhausen-style head movement and the analysis of verb-second. In Syntax at sunset: Head movement and syntactic theory ed. Anoop Mahajan, 40–76. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
  35. Fanselow, Gisbert. 2004. Cyclic phonology-syntax-interaction: Movement to first position in German. In Interdisciplinary studies on information structure, vol. 1, ed. Shinichiro Ishihara, Michaela Schmitz, and Anne Schwarz, 1–42. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.Google Scholar
  36. Frascarelli, Mara, and Roland Hinterhölzl. 2007. Types of topics in German and Italian. In On information structure, meaning and form: Generalizations across languages, ed. Kerstin Schwabe and Susanne Winkler, 87–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Fraurud, Kari, and Ellen Bijvoet. 2004. Multietniskt ungdomsspråk och andra varieteter av svenska i flerspråkiga miljöer. In Svenska som andraspråk: i forskning, undervisning och samhälle, ed. Kenneth Hyltenstam and Inger Lindberg, 400–401. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
  38. Freeman, Edward A. 1871. Old English history for children, 2nd ed. London: J. M. Dent & Sons.Google Scholar
  39. Frey, Werner. 2004. The grammar-pragmatics interface and the German prefield. Sprache und Pragmatik 52: 1–39.Google Scholar
  40. Freywald, Ulrike, Katharina Mayr, Tiner Özçelik, and Heike Wiese. 2011. Kiezdeutsch as a multiethnolect. In Ethnic styles of speaking in European metropolitan areas, ed. Friederike Kern and Margret Selting, 45–73. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Freywald, Ulrike, Leonie Cornips, Natalia Ganuza, Ingvild Nistov, and Toril Opsahl. 2015. Beyond verb second—A matter of novel information-structural effects? Evidence from German, Swedish, Norwegian and Dutch. In Language, youth and identity in the 21st century: Linguistic practices across urban spaces, ed. Jacomine Nortier, and Bente A. Svendsen, 73–92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Fukui, Naoki. 1993. Parameters and optionality. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 399–420.Google Scholar
  43. Ganuza, Natalia. 2008. Syntactic variation in the Swedish of adolescents in multilingual urban settings: Subject-verb order in declaratives, questions and subordinate clauses. Ph.D. dissertation, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
  44. Ganuza, Natalia. 2010. Subject-verb order variation in the Swedish of young people in multilingual urban areas. In Multilingual urban Scandinavia: New linguistic practices, ed. Pia Quist and Bente A. Svendsen, 31–48. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  45. Giorgi, Alessandra, and Fabio Pianesi. 1997. Tense and aspect: From semantics to morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Green, Thomas. 2011. A re-evaluation of the evidence of Anglian-British interaction in the Lincoln region. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  47. Grewendorf, Günther. 1988. Aspekte der deutschen Syntax: Eine Rektions-Bindungs-Analyse. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
  48. Haeberli, Eric. 2002. Inflectional morphology and the loss of V2 in English. In Syntactic effects of morphological change, ed. David Lightfoot, 88–106. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Haegeman, Liliane. 1995. The syntax of negation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Haegeman, Liliane. 2003. Conditional clauses: External and internal syntax. Mind and Language 18: 317–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Haegeman, Liliane. 2006. Conditionals, factives and the left periphery. Lingua 116: 1651–1669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Haider, Hubert. 1993. Deutsche syntax generativ. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
  53. Haider, Hubert. 2010. The syntax of German. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Håkansson, Gisela, Manfred Pienemann, and Susan Sayehli. 2002. Transfer and typological proximity in the context of second language processing. Second Language Research 18: 250–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Hansen, Gert Foget, and Nicolai Pharao. 2005. Prosodiske træk i et-og tosprogede unges københavnsk. Danske talesprog 5: 1–50.Google Scholar
  56. Heycock, Caroline. 2006. Embedded root phenomena. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, ed. Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, 174–209. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Hinterhölzl, Roland, and Svetlana Petrova. 2009. From V1 to V2 in West Germanic. Lingua 120: 315–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Holmberg, Anders. 2015. Verb-second. In Syntax—theory and analysis: An international handbook, vol. 1, ed. Tibor Kiss and Artemis Alexiadou, 342–382. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  59. Hornstein, Norbert. 1995. Logical form: From GB to Minimalism. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  60. Hsu, Brian. 2016. Unification of Feature Scattering and M-Merger as Coalescence. Ms, USC.Google Scholar
  61. Hyltenstam, Kenneth. 1978. Variability in interlanguage syntax. Working Papers 18. Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
  62. Iatridou, Sabine, and Anthony Kroch. 1992. The licensing of CP-recursion and its relevance to the Germanic verb-second phenomenon. In Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, vol. 50, 1–25.Google Scholar
  63. Ko, Heejeong. 2005. Syntax of why-in-situ: Merge into [SPEC, CP] in the overt syntax. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 867–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Koopman, Willem. 1995. Verb-final main clauses in Old English prose. Studia Neophilologica 67: 129–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Koopman, Willem. 1996. Evidence for clitic adverbs in Old English: An evaluation. In English Historical Linguistics 1994, ed. Derek Britton, 223–245. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Kotsinas, Ulla-Britt. 1988. Rinkebysvenskan—En dialekt? Svenskans beskrivning 16: 264–278.Google Scholar
  67. Kotsinas, Ulla-Britt. 1992. Immigrant adolescents’ Swedish in multicultural areas. In Ethnicity in youth culture, ed. Cecilia Palmgren, Karin Lövgren, and Goran Bolin, 43–62. Stockholm: Stockholms Universitet.Google Scholar
  68. Kotsinas, Ulla-Britt. 1994. Ungdomsspråk. Uppsala: Hallgren och Fallgren.Google Scholar
  69. Kotsinas, Ulla-Britt. 1998. Language contact in Rinkeby, an immigrant suburb. In Jugendsprache—langue des jeunes—youth language. Linguistische und soziolinguistische Perspektiven, ed. Jannis K. Androutsopoulos and Arno Scholz, 125–148. Frankfurt: Lang.Google Scholar
  70. Krifka, Manfred. 2008. Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55: 243–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Kroch, Anthony, and Ann Taylor. 1997. Verb movement in Old and Middle English: Dialect variation and language contact. In Parameters of morphosyntactic change, ed. Ans van Kemenade and Nigel Vincent, 297–325. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Laker, Stephen. 2008. Changing views about Anglo-Saxons and Britons. In Six papers from the 28th Symposium on Medieval Studies held at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on 15 December 2006, ed. Henk Aertsen and Bart Veldhoen, 1–38. Leiden: Leiden University Department of English.Google Scholar
  73. Light, Caitlin. 2013. The syntax and pragmatics of fronting in Germanic. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  74. Light, Caitlin. 2015. Expletive there in West Germanic. In Syntax over time: Lexical, morphological, and information-structural interactions, ed. Theresa Biberauer and George Walkden, 17–35. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. López, Luis. 2009. A derivational syntax for information structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Lucas, Christopher. 2009. The development of negation in Arabic and Afro-Asiatic. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
  77. Lucas, Christopher. 2012. Contact-induced grammatical change: Towards an explicit account. Diachronica 29: 275–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Lutz, Angelika. 2009. Celtic influence on Old English and West Germanic. English Language and Linguistics 13: 227–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. McCloskey, James. 2006. Questions and questioning in a local English. In Crosslinguistic research in syntax and semantics: Negation, tense, and clausal architecture, ed. Raffaella Zanuttini, Héctor Campos, Elena Herburger, and Paul H. Portner, 87–126. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  80. McWhorter, John. 2009. What else happened to English? A brief for the Celtic hypothesis. English Language and Linguistics 13: 163–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Mohr, Sabine. 2009. V2 as a single-edge phenomenon. In Selected papers from the 2006 Cyprus Syntaxfest, ed. Kleanthes K. Grohmann and Phoevos Panagiotidis, 141–158. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  82. Müller, Natascha. 1993. Komplexe Sätze: der Erwerb von COMP und von Wortstellungsmustern bei bilingualen Kindern (Französisch/Deutsch). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
  83. Nistov, Ingvild, and Toril Opsahl. 2014. The social side of syntax in multilingual Oslo. In The sociolinguistics of grammar, ed. Brit Mæhlum and Tor Åfarli, 91–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Opsahl, Toril, and Ingvild Nistov. 2010. On some structural aspects of Norwegian spoken among adolescents in multilingual settings in Oslo. In Multilingual urban Scandinavia: New linguistic practices, ed. Pia Quist and Bente A. Svendsen, 49–63. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  85. Parodi, Teresa, Bonnie D. Schwartz, and Harald Clahsen. 2004. On the L2 acquisition of the morphosyntax of German nominals. Linguistics 42: 669–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Pesetsky, David. 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In The representation of (in)definiteness, ed. Eric Reuland and Alice ter Meulen, 98–129. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  87. Pintzuk, Susan. 1999. Phrase structures in competition: Variation and change in Old English word order. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  88. Pintzuk, Susan, and Eric Haeberli. 2008. Structural variation in Old English root clauses. Language Variation and Change 20: 367–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Quist, Pia. 2000. Ny københavnsk “multietnolekt.” Om sprogbrug blandt unge i sprogligt og kulturelt heterogene miljøer. Danske Talesprog 1: 143–212.Google Scholar
  90. Quist, Pia. 2005. Stilistiske praksisser i storbyens heterogene skole. En etnografisk og sociolingvistisk undersøgelse af sproglig variation. Ph.D. dissertation, Københavns Universitet.Google Scholar
  91. Quist, Pia. 2008. Sociolinguistic approaches to multiethnolect: Language variety and stylistic practice. International Journal of Bilingualism 12: 43–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Quist, Pia. 2012. Stilistisk praksis: unge og sprog i den senmoderne storby. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanums Forlag.Google Scholar
  93. Radford, Andrew. 2013. The complementiser system in spoken English: Evidence from broadcast media. In Information structure and agreement, ed. Victoria Camacho-Taboada, Ángel L. Jiménez-Fernández, Javier Martín-González, and Mariano Reyes-Tejedor, 11–54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Rampton, Ben. 2010. From ‘multi-ethnic urban heteroglossia’ to ‘contemporary urban vernaculars’. In Working papers in Urban language and literacies, vol. 61. London: King’s College.Google Scholar
  95. Rampton, Ben. 2015. Contemporary urban vernaculars. In Language, youth and identity in the 21st century: Linguistic practices across urban spaces, ed. Jacomine Nortier and Bente A. Svendsen, 24–44. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Rehbein, Ines, Sören Schalowski, and Heike Wiese. 2014. The KiezDeutsch Korpus (KiDKo) Release 1.0. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC), ed. Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Thierry Declerck, Hrafn Loftsson, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Asuncion Moreno, Jan Odijk, and Stelios Piperidis, 3927–3934. Reykjavík: ELRA.Google Scholar
  97. Reis, Marga. 2013. ”Weil-V2“-Sätze und (k)ein Ende? Anmerkungen zur Analyse von Antomo & Steinbach (2010). Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 32: 221–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  99. Rizzi, Luigi. 1996. Residual verb-second and the Wh-Criterion. In Parameters and functional heads: Essays in comparative syntax, ed. Adriana Belletti and Luigi Rizzi, 63–90. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  100. Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar, ed. Liliane Haegeman, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Rizzi, Luigi. 2001. Relativized Minimality effects. In The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, ed. Mark Baltin, and Chris Collins, 89–110. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Roberts, Ian. 1996. Remarks on the Old English C-system and the diachrony of V2. In Language change and generative grammar, ed. Ellen Brandner and Gisella Ferraresi, 154–164. Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 7. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  103. Roberts, Ian. 2004. The C-system in Brythonic Celtic languages, V2, and the EPP. In The cartography of syntactic structures: The structure of CP and IP, vol. 2, ed. Luigi Rizzi, 297–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  104. Roberts, Ian. 2007. Diachronic syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  105. Ross, J.R. 1972. Doubl-ing. Linguistic Inquiry 3: 61–86.Google Scholar
  106. Schalowski, Sören. 2015. Wortstellungsvariation aus informationsstruktureller Perspektive: eine Untersuchung der linken Satzperipherie im gesprochenen Deutsch. Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 18. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.Google Scholar
  107. Schalowski, Sören. To appear. From adverbial to discourse connective: Multiple prefields in spoken German and the use of dann ‘then’ and danach ‘afterwards’. In Connectives as a functional category: Between clauses and discourse units, ed. Miriam Fried and Eva Lehečková. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  108. Schwartz, Bonnie D., and Sten Vikner. 1996. The verb always leaves IP in V2 clauses. In Parameters and functional heads, ed. Adriana Belletti, and Luigi Rizzi, 11–63. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  109. Shlonsky, Ur, and Gabriela Soare. 2011. Where’s “Why”? Linguistic Inquiry 42: 651–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Speyer, Augustin. 2010. Topicalization and stress clash avoidance in the history of English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Stepanov, Arthur, and Wei-Tien Dylan Tsai. 2008. Cartography and licensing of wh-adjuncts: A crosslinguistic perspective. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26: 589–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Sundquist, John D. 2005. The Mapping Problem and missing surface inflection in Turkish-German interlanguage. In Proceedings of the 7th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2004), ed. Laurent Dekydtspotter, Rex A. Sprouse, and Audrey Liljestrand, 238–250. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
  113. Svendsen, Bente A. 2010. Linguistic practices in multilingual urban Norway: An overview. In Multilingual urban Scandinavia: New linguistic practices, ed. Pia Quist and Bente A. Svendsen, 12–16. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  114. Taylor, Ann. 2014. Old English syntax. In The development of Old English, ed. Don Ringe and Ann Taylor, 392–509. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  115. Taylor, Ann, Anthony Warner, Susan Pintzuk, and Frank Beths. 2003. York-Toronto-Helsinki parsed corpus of Old English prose.Google Scholar
  116. te Velde, John. To appear. Temporal adverbs in the Kiezdeutsch left periphery: Combining late merge with deaccentuation for V3. Studia Linguistica.Google Scholar
  117. Tomaselli, Alessandra. 1995. Cases of verb third in Old High German. In Clause structure and language change, ed. Adrian Battye and Ian Roberts, 345–369. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  118. Travis, Lisa de Mena. 1984. Parameters and effects of word order variation. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  119. Tristram, Hildegard. 2004. Diglossia in Anglo-Saxon England, or what was spoken Old English like? Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 40: 87–110.Google Scholar
  120. Trudgill, Peter. 2011. Sociolinguistic typology: Social determinants of linguistic complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  121. van Coetsem, Frans. 1988. Loan phonology and the two transfer types in language contact. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. van Coetsem, Frans. 2000. A general and unified theory of the transmission process in language contact. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
  123. van der Auwera, Johan, and Inge Genee. 2002. English do: On the convergence of languages and linguists. English Language and Linguistics 6: 283–307.Google Scholar
  124. van Gelderen, Elly. 2008. Where did Late Merge go? Grammaticalization as feature economy. Studia Linguistica 62: 287–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. van Kemenade, Ans. 1987. Syntactic case and morphological case in the history of English. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. van Kemenade, Ans. 1997. V2 and embedded topicalization in Old and Middle English. In Parameters of morphosyntactic change, ed. Ans van Kemenade and Nigel Vincent, 326–352. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  127. van Kemenade, Ans, and Bettelou Los. 2006. Discourse adverbs and clausal syntax in Old and Middle English. In The handbook of the history of English, ed. Ans van Kemenade and Bettelou Los, 224–248. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. van Kemenade, Ans, and Tanja Milićev. 2012. Syntax and discourse in Old and Middle English word order. In Grammatical change: Origins, nature, outcomes, ed. Dianne Jonas, John Whitman, and Andrew Garrett, 239–254. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  129. Vikner, Sten. 1995. Verb movement and expletive subjects in the Germanic languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  130. Vikner, Sten. 2001. Verb movement variation in Germanic and Optimality Theory. Habilitationsschrift, Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
  131. Walkden, George. 2014. Syntactic reconstruction and Proto-Germanic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Walkden, George. 2015. Verb-third in early West Germanic: A comparative perspective. In Syntax over time: Lexical, morphological, and information–structural interactions, ed. Theresa Biberauer, and George Walkden, 236–248. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Westergaard, Marit. 2005. Norwegian child language and the history of English: The interaction of syntax and information structure in the development of word order. In Contexts—historical, social, linguistic: Studies in celebration of Toril Swan, ed. Kevin McCafferty, Tove Bull, and Kristin Killie, 293–310. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  134. Westergaard, Marit, and Øystein Vangsnes. 2005. Wh-questions, V2, and the left periphery of three Norwegian dialect types. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 8: 117–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Wiese, Heike. 2006. “Ich mach dich Messer”: Grammatische Produktivität in Kiez-Sprache. Linguistische Berichte 207: 245–273.Google Scholar
  136. Wiese, Heike. 2009. Grammatical innovation in multiethnic urban Europe: New linguistic practices among adolescents. Lingua 119: 782–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Wiese, Heike. 2012. Kiezdeutsch: ein neuer Dialekt entsteht. München: C. H. Beck.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Wiese, Heike. 2013. From feature pool to pond: The ecology of new urban vernaculars. In Working Papers in Urban Language and Literacies, vol. 104, 1–29.Google Scholar
  139. Wiese, Heike, and Ines Rehbein. 2016. Coherence in new urban dialects: A case study. Lingua 172–173: 45–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Willis, David. 1998. Syntactic change in Welsh: A study of the loss of verb-second. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  141. Winford, Donald. 2003. An introduction to contact linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  142. Winford, Donald. 2005. Contact-induced changes: Classification and processes. Diachronica 22: 373–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Zaimoğlu, Feridun. 1995. Kanak Sprak: 24 Mißtöne vom Rande der Gesellschaft. Berlin: Rotbuch.Google Scholar
  144. Zepter, Alex. 2003. Phrase structure directionality: Having a few choices. Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  145. Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter. 1991. Clitics in Dutch: Evidence for the position of INFL. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 33: 71–92.Google Scholar
  146. Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter. 1993. Dutch syntax: A Minimalist approach. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Groningen.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Arts, Languages and CulturesThe University of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations