Advertisement

The force of V2 revisited

  • Marit JulienEmail author
ORIGINAL PAPER

Abstract

The main claim of this paper is that embedded V2 clauses in Mainland Scandinavian have the same syntactic structure as main clauses. This means that embedded V2 clauses contain a Force head, and as a consequence, embedded declarative V2 clauses will normally be asserted. Embedded V2 clauses are also similar to main clauses in that they contain linkers which encode the local speaker and addressee. Hence, indexical shift is possible in embedded V2 clauses, but not in non-V2 clauses, which do not contain linkers. In shifted contexts, the assertion that the embedded clause represents will be attributed to the local, implicit speaker, while in other cases, the actual speaker will be responsible for the assertion. The Force head is also the source of the V2 order, since it attracts the finite verb in addition to attracting a phrase from its complement to its Spec. In this way, the connection between V2 order and illocutionary force gets a straightforward explanation.

Keywords

Verb second Embedded clauses Mainland Scandinavian Illocutionary force 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anand, Pranav, and Andrew Nevins. 2004. Shifty operators in changing contexts. In SALT XIV, ed. R. Young, 20–37. Ithaca: Cornell University.Google Scholar
  2. Andersson, Lars-Gunnar. 1975. Form and function of subordinate clauses. Doctoral dissertation, University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
  3. Bentzen, Kristine. 2003. V-to-I movement in the absence of morphological cues: Evidence from adult and child Northern Norwegian. Nordlyd 31: 573–588.Google Scholar
  4. Bentzen, Kristine. 2005. What's the better move? On verb placement in Standard and Northern Norwegian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 28: 153–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bentzen, Kristine. 2009. Subject positions and their interaction with verb movement. Studia Linguistica 63: 261–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bentzen, Kristine. 2010. Exploring embedded main clause phenomena: The irrelevance of factivity and some challenges from V2 languages. Theoretical Linguistics 36: 163–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bentzen, Kristine, Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, Þorbjörg Hróarsdóttir, and Anna-Lena Wiklund. 2007. The Tromsø guide to the force behind V2. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 79: 93–118.Google Scholar
  8. Bianchi, Valentina, and Mara Frascarelli. 2010. Is topic a root phenomenon? Iberia 2(1): 43–88.Google Scholar
  9. Biberauer, Theresa. 2002. Reconsidering embedded verb second: How ‘real’ is this phenomenon? Working Papers in English and Applied Linguistics 8: 25–60.Google Scholar
  10. de Haan, Germen J. 2001. More is going on upstairs than downstairs: Embedded root phenomena in West Frisian. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 4: 3–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. den Besten, Hans. 1983. On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules. In On the formal syntax of the Westgermania, ed. Werner Abraham, 47–131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eide, Kristin Melum. 2011. Norwegian (non-V2) declaratives, resumptive elements, and the Wackernagel position. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 34: 179–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ekerot, Lars-Johan. 1988. Så-konstruktionen i svenskan. Doctoral dissertation, Lund University.Google Scholar
  14. Elmquist, Axel Louis. 1945. The resumptive use of in Swedish. Scandinavian Studies 18: 209–232.Google Scholar
  15. Enç, Mürvet. 1987. Anchoring conditions for Tense. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 633–657.Google Scholar
  16. Frascarelli, Mara, and Roland Hinterhölzl. 2007. Types of topics in German and Italian. In On information structure, meaning and form, ed. Kerstin Schwabe and Susanne Winkler, 87–116. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fretheim, Thorstein. 2010. The metarepresentational use of main clause phenomena in embedded clauses. Linguistics 48: 301–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gärtner, Hans-Martin. 2002. On the force of V2 declaratives. Theoretical Linguistics 28: 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gärtner, Hans-Martin, and Jens Michaelis. 2010. On modeling the distribution of declarative V2 clauses: the case of disjunction. In Judgements and propositions, ed. Sebastian Bab and Klaus Robering, 11–25. Berlin: Logos.Google Scholar
  20. Grohmann, Kleanthes K. 2000. Copy left dislocation. In Proceedings of the 19th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Roger Billerey and Brook Danielle Lillehaugen, 139–152. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  21. Haegeman, Liliane. 1997. Negative inversion and the structure of CP. Paper presented at the Linguistic Colloquium, University of Wuppertal.Google Scholar
  22. Haegeman, Liliane. 2006. Conditionals, factives and the left periphery. Lingua 116: 1651–1669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heycock, Caroline. 2006. Embedded root phenomena. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, vol. II, ed. Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, 174–209. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heycock, Caroline, Antonella Sorace, and Zakaris Svabo Hansen. 2010. V-to-I and V2 in subordinate clauses: an investigation of Faroese in relation to Icelandic and Danish. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 13: 61–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Holmberg, Anders. 1986. Word order and syntactic features in the Scandinavian languages and English. Doctoral dissertation, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
  26. Holmberg, Anders. 2015. Verb second. In Syntax – Theory and Analysis: An International Handbook, eds. Tibor Kiss and Artemis Alexiadou, 342–382. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  27. Hooper, Joan, and Sandra Thompson. 1973. On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 465–497.Google Scholar
  28. Hrafnbjargarson, Gunnar Hrafn, Kristine Bentzen, and Anna-Lena Wiklund. 2010. Observations on extraction from V2 clauses in Scandinavian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 33: 299–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Iatridou, Sabine, and Anthony Kroch. 1992. The licensing of CP recursion and its relevance to the Germanic verb-second phenomenon. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 50: 1–25.Google Scholar
  30. Johannessen, Janne Bondi. 1998. Coordination. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Johannessen, Janne Bondi. 2005. The syntax of correlative adverbs. Lingua 115: 419–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Johannessen, Janne Bondi, Joel Priestley, Kristin Hagen, Tor Anders Åfarli, and Øystein Alexander Vangsnes. 2009. The Nordic dialect corpus: An advanced research tool. In Proceedings of the 17th Nordic Conference of Computational Linguistics NODALIDA 2009, eds. Kristiina Jokinen and Eckhard Bick. NEALT Proceedings Series Volume 4.Google Scholar
  33. Julien, Marit. 2007. Embedded V2 in Norwegian and Swedish. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 80: 103–161.Google Scholar
  34. Julien, Marit. 2009. The force of the argument. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 84: 225–232.Google Scholar
  35. Julien, Marit. 2010. Embedded clauses with main clause word order in Mainland Scandinavian. LingBuzz. http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000475.
  36. Krifka, Manfred. 2001. Quantifying into question acts. Natural Language Semantics 9: 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Krifka, Manfred. 2015. Embedding illocutionary acts. In Recusrion: Complexity in Cognition, eds. Peggy Speas and Tom Roeper, 59–88. Cham: Springer..Google Scholar
  38. Larson, Richard K. 1985. On the syntax of disjunction scope. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 217–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mahajan, Anoop. 2003. Word order and (remnant) VP movement. In Word order and Scrambling, ed. Simin Karimi, 217–237. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Meinunger, André. 2006. On the discourse impact of subordinate clauses. In The architecture of focus, ed. Valéria Molnár and Susanne Winkler, 459–487. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Müller, Gereon. 2004. Verb-second as vP-first. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 7: 179–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nilsen, Øystein. 2003. Eliminating positions. Doctoral dissertation, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
  43. Nordström, Jackie. 2010. The Swedish -construction, a new point of departure. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 85: 37–63.Google Scholar
  44. Ottesjö, Cajsa, and Jan Lindström. 2006. som diskursmarkör. Språk & Stil 15: 85–127.Google Scholar
  45. Petersson, David. 2009. Embedded V2 does not exist in Swedish. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 84: 101–149.Google Scholar
  46. Poletto, Cecilia. 2002. The left-periphery of V2-Rhaetoromance dialects: a new view on V2 and V3. In Syntactic microvariation, eds. Sjef Barbiers, Leonie Cornips and Susanne van der Kleij, 214–242. Electronic publications of Meertens Instituut. http://www.meertens.knaw.nl/books/synmic/pdf/poletto.pdf
  47. Reis, Marga. 2003. On the form and interpretation of German wh-infinitives. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 15: 155–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar, ed. Liliane Haegeman, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Roberts, Ian. 2004. The C-system in Brythonic Celtic languages, V2 and the EPP. In The structure of CP and IP, ed. Luigi Rizzi, 297–328. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Schlenker, Philippe. 1999. Propositional attitudes and indexicality. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  51. Searle, John R. 1969. Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sells, Peter. 1987. Aspects of logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 445–479.Google Scholar
  53. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2004a. Meaningful silence, meaningless sounds. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 4: 235–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2004b. The syntax of person, tense, and speech features. Italian Journal of Linguistics 16: 219–251.Google Scholar
  55. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2010. On EPP effects. Studia Linguistica 64: 158–189.Google Scholar
  56. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2011. Conditions on argument drop. Linguistic Inquiry 42: 267–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2012. About pronouns. Ms., Lund University.Google Scholar
  58. Simons, Mandy. 2007. Observations on embedding verbs, evidentiality, and presupposition. Lingua 117: 1034–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sollid, Hilde, and Kristin Melum Eide. 2007. On verb second and the -construction in two Mainland Scandinavian contact situations. Nordlyd 34(3): 7–28.Google Scholar
  60. Speas, Peggy, and Carol Tenny. 2003. Configurational properties of point of view roles. In Asymmetry in grammar, ed. Anna Maria Di Sciullo, 315–344. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stalnaker, Robert. 2002. Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 701–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Stroh-Wollin, Ulla. 2002. Som-satser med och utan som. Doctoral dissertation, Uppsala University.Google Scholar
  63. Stroh-Wollin, Ulla. 2011. Embedded declaratives, assertion and swear words. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 87: 81–102.Google Scholar
  64. Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2006. On the semantic motivation of syntactic verb movement to C in German. Theoretical Linguistics 32: 257–306.Google Scholar
  65. Tsoulas, George, and Murat Kural. 1999. Indexical pronouns as bound variables. In Proceedings of the 18th West Coast conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Sonya Bird, Andrew Carnie, Jason D. Haugen, and Peter Norquest, 545–557. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  66. Wechsler, Stephen. 1991. Verb second and illocutionary force. In Views on Phrase Structure, ed. Katherine Leffel and Denis Bouchard, 177–191. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Westergaard, Marit. 2011. Subject positions and information structure: The effect of frequency on acquisition and change. Studia Linguistica 65: 299–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wiklund, Anna-Lena. 2009a. In search of the force of dependent V2: A note on Swedish. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 83: 27–36.Google Scholar
  69. Wiklund, Anna-Lena. 2009b. May the force be with you: A reply from the 5th floor. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 84: 233–236.Google Scholar
  70. Wiklund, Anna-Lena. 2010. In search of the force of dependent verb second. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 33: 81–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wiklund, Anna-Lena, Gunnar H. Hrafnbjargarsson, Þorbjörg Hróarsdóttir, and Kristine Bentzen. 2007. Rethinking Scandinavian verb movement. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 10: 203–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wiklund, Anna-Lena, Kristine Bentzen, Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, and Þorbjörg Hróarsdóttir. 2009. On the distribution and illocution of V2 in Scandinavian that-clauses. Lingua 119: 1914–1938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Languages and LiteratureLund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations