Re: THEORY: CP-V2 vs. IP-V2
| From: | Matt Pearson <mpearson@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Wednesday, May 19, 1999, 1:37 |
|---|
>What is the difference between these two kinds of "verb second"
>languages?
Well, here's an attempt (a fixed-width font would be very helpful
in making sense of the examples):
"Verb second" (V2) languages, as you probably already know, are
languages in which the finite (tense-marked) verb is always the second
constituent in main clauses. The most famous V2 languages are the
Germanic languages - other than English, which only has vestiges of
V2. (There's also Kashmiri, spoken in northern India and Pakistan,
and a handful of other V2 languages here and there, but when people
say "verb second" they're almost always talking about Germanic...)
In main clauses in V2 languages, the finite verb always occurs after
the first constituent in the clause (abstracting away from yes/no
questions and imperatives, where the verb comes first in the clause).
Any non-finite verbs in the clause (participles, imperatives) come
elsewhere - in German and Dutch, they come at the end of the clause,
while in Swedish, Danish, and Norwegian they come somewhere in the
middle of the clause:
German: Ich HAB' das Buch gestern GELESEN
I have the book yesterday read
"I read the book yesterday"
Das Buch HAB' ich gestern GELESEN
the book HAVE I yesterday read
"That book, I read yesterday"
Gestern HAB' ich das Buch GELESEN
yesterday have I the book read
"Yesterday I read the book"
Swedish: Jag HAR LAEST den daer boken maanga gaangen
I have read that there book-the many times
"I've read that book many times"
Den daer boken HAR jag LAEST maanga gaangen
that there book-the have I read many times
"That book I've read many times"
Maanga gaangen HAR jag LAEST den daer boken
many times have I read that there book-the
"I've read that book many times"
In embedded clauses, the verb does *not* occur in second position.
Instead, it occurs in the same position where non-finite verbs occur
in main clauses (i.e. at the end of the clause in the case of German
and Dutch, and in the middle of the clause in Mainland Scandinavian):
German: Ich weiss dass du das Buch gestern GELESEN HAST
I know that you the book yesterday read have
"I know that you read the book yesterday"
Swedish: Jag vet att du HAR LAEST boken maanga gaangen
I know that you have read book-the many times
"I know that you have read the book many times"
In the case of Swedish, how can you tell that the finite verb "har" is
sitting in the position where non-finite verbs go in main clauses?
Well, you can look at the position of negation. In main clauses,
the finite verb precedes the negative word "inte", while any non-finite
verbs follow negation:
Jag HAR inte LAEST boken
I have not read book-the
"I have not read the book"
In embedded clauses, "har" follows negation rather than preceding it:
Han vet att jag inte HAR LAEST boken
he knows that I not have read book-the
"He knows that I have not read the book"
To account for the fact that V2 only occurs in main clauses, certain
linguists have suggested that the V2 position is the same as the
position occupied by the complementizer "that" (this position is
called C). Thus, finite verbs and complementizers compete for the same
syntactic 'slot': When there's a complementizer (as in embedded clauses)
the verb stays in its base position, and when there is no complementizer
(as in main clauses), the verb raises up to fill the position. Another
element then moves in front of the verb, giving verb-second order:
Embedded clauses: (C)
THAT John the book yesterday READ
Main clauses: (C)
John READ the book yesterday
The book READ John yesterday
Yesterday READ John the book
This is a neat theory. Unfortunately, it doesn't work for ALL V2
languages: Icelandic and Yiddish (the two major Germanic languages
which I didn't mention above) have verb-second order *not only* in
main clauses *but also* in embedded clauses. In other words, you can
get a complementizer and a second-position verb occurring in the same
clause. I don't know any Icelandic or Yiddish, but the relevant
examples would look like this:
Main clauses: John READ the book yesterday
The book READ John yesterday
Yesterday READ John the book
Embedded clauses: I know THAT John READ the book yesterday
I know THAT the book READ John yesterday
I know THAT yesterday READ John the book
To account for this, some linguists have proposed that in Icelandic
and Yiddish, the finite verb does not move all the way up to C. Instead,
it moves to the verb-position immediately to the left of C, which is called
I. If the complementizer is sitting in C, and the verb is sitting in
I, this would explain why you can get both in the same sentence:
Main clauses: (I)
John READ the book yesterday
The book READ John yesterday
Yesterday READ John the book
Embedded clauses: (C) (I)
I know THAT John READ the book yesterday
I know THAT the book READ John yesterday
I know THAT yesterday READ John the book
Languages which have the German/Dutch/Swedish pattern are called "CP-V2"
languages, reflecting the fact that the verb-second position is C, while
languages which have the Icelandic/Yiddish pattern are called "IP-V2",
reflecting the fact that in these languages the verb only moves up to I.
All of this is very theory-specific, of course. The terms "CP-V2" and
"IP-V2" are biased in favour of a theory of syntax which posits various
preexisting positions to which elements can move. But even if you don't
accept such a theory, the dichotomy remains: Some V2 languages allow
verb-second order in embedded clauses, and others don't.
Whew! Does all that make any sense?
Matt.
------------------------------------
Matt Pearson
mpearson@ucla.edu
UCLA Linguistics Department
405 Hilgard Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543
------------------------------------