Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-7c2ld Total loading time: 1.267 Render date: 2021-11-27T21:48:51.920Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Chapter 15 - VO-/OV-Base Ordering

from Part III - Syntax

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2020

Michael T. Putnam
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
B. Richard Page
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
Get access

Summary

In North-Germanic languages and English, VPs are head-initial. In continental West-Germanic languages, VPs are head-final. This chapter surveys major syntactic contrasts that directly correlate with this structural difference. Head-initial phrases are structurally more tightly constrained than head-final phrases. Since clauses typically contain VPs, constraints on VPs are reflected in the clause structure. Syntactic differences triggered by head-positioning show in contrasts such as the following. Head-initial VPs are strictly ordered, that is, the relative order of arguments does not change; adjuncts do not intervene between the head and the arguments; the relative order of auxiliaries is invariable. In addition to the VP-internal contrasts, there are VP-external ones, too. Adjuncts preceding head-initial phrases are head-adjacent, hence adjuncts preceding head-initial VPs are minimized. Finally, head-initial VPs with a preverbal subject entail clause structures with an obligatory subject position. All these restrictions are absent when the VP is head-final.

Type
Chapter
Information
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

Åfarli, T. A. 1985. “Norwegian verb particle constructions as causative constructions,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 8: 7598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Augustinus, L. 2015. Complement Raising and Cluster Formation in Dutch. Doctoral dissertation. KU Leuven.Google Scholar
Augustinus, L. and Dirix, P. 2013. “The IPP effect in Afrikaans: A corpus analysis,” Proceedings of the 19th Nordic Conference of Computational Linguistics. Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings 85: 213225.Google Scholar
Bech, G. 1957/1983.2 Studien über das Deutsche Verbum infinitum. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. First edition in: Historisk-filologiske Meddelelser udgivet af Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab 35: 2 (1955) and 36: 6 (1957).Google Scholar
Bentzen, K. 2005. “What’s the better move? On verb placement in Standard and Northern Norwegian,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 28.2: 153188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broekhuis, H. 2006. “The universal base hypothesis: VO or OV?” In de Weijer, J. van and Los, B. (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 2006. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 2839.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, H. 2008. Derivations and Evaluations: Object Shift in the Germanic Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broekhuis, H. 2013. Syntax of Dutch: Adpositions and Adpositional Phrases. Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Collins, C. and Thráinsson, H 1996. “VP-internal structure and object shift in Icelandic,” Linguistic Inquiry 27.3: 391–344.Google Scholar
Dehé, N. 2004. “On the order of objects in Icelandic double object constructions,” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 16: 85108.Google Scholar
Dehé, N. 2015. “Particle verbs in Germanic.” In Müller, P. O., Ohnheiser, I., Olsen, S., and Rainer, F (eds.), Word Formation. An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 611626.Google Scholar
Diesing, M. 1997. “Yiddish VP order and the typology of object movement in Germanic,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15.2: 369427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donaldson B., C. 1993. A Grammar of Afrikaans. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engdahl, E., Andréasson, M., and Börjars, K. 2003. “Word order in the Swedish midfield – an OT approach.” in Butt, M. and Holloway-King, T. (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG 03 Conference. Stanford: CSLI Publications: 4358.Google Scholar
Geerts, G., Haeseryn, W., de Rooij, J., and van den Toorn, M. C. 1984. Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Haeseryn, W., Romijn, K., Geerts, G, de Rooij, J., and van den Toorn, M.. 1997. Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst2. Groningen and Deurne: Martinus Nijhoff and Wolters Plantyn.Google Scholar
Haider, H. 2010. The Syntax of German. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haider, H. 2013. Symmetry Breaking in Syntax. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haider, H. 2014. “The VO-OV split of Germanic languages – a T3 & V2 production,” Interdisciplinary Journal for Germanic Linguistics and Semiotic Analysis 19.1: 5779.Google Scholar
Haider, H. 2015. “Head directionality – in syntax and morphology.” In Fábregas, A., Mateu, J., and Putnam, M. T. (eds.), Contemporary Linguistic Parameter. London: Bloomsbury Academic: 7397.Google Scholar
Haider, H. 2019. “On absent, expletive and non-referential subjects.” In Wolfsgruber, A. C., Pöll, B., and Herbeck, P. (eds.), Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Impersonality. Linguistische Berichte (Sonderheft 26). Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag: 11–46.Google Scholar
Haider, H. (in press). “The Left-Left Constraint – a structural constraint on adjuncts.” In Freywald, U. and Horst, S. (eds.), Headedness and / or Grammatical Anarchy? Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Hauge, H. 2003. “Towards a unified representation of English and Norwegian auxiliaries,” Nordic Journal of English Studies 2: 5374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, E. 1998. “Analysing linear asymmetries in the verb clusters of Dutch and Frisian and their dialects.” In Beerman, D., LeBlanc, D., and van Riemsdijk, H. C. (eds.), Rightward Movement. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 153169.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, E. 2016. Frisian syntax – control verbs. Taalportaal. The Linguistics of Dutch, Frisian, and Afrikaans online: www.taalportaal.org/taalportaal/topic/pid/topic-14127700752502220.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, T. and Mulder, R. 1990. “Unergatives as copular verbs: Locational and existential predication,” The Linguistic Review 7: 179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerstens, J. G. 1975. Over afgeleide structuur en de interpretatie van zinnen. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
King, S. 1989. The dark half. New York, NY: Viking.Google Scholar
Koeneman, O. 2000. The Flexible Nature of Verb Movement. Doctoral dissertation, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Lundquist, B. 2014a. “The verb phrase: Argument structure and particle placement,” The Nordic Atlas of Language Structures Journal 1: 107109.Google Scholar
Lundquist, B. 2014b. “Double object constructions: Active verbs,” The Nordic Atlas of Language Structures Journal 1: 136145.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. and Santorini, B. 2016. “Evidence for OV word order in Older French, Icelandic, and Yiddish.” Presentation, University of Pennsylvania. www.ling.upenn.edu/~kroch/handouts/fwav3.pdf (Feb. 3, 2017).Google Scholar
Neeleman, A. 1994a. “Scrambling as a D-structure phenomenon.” In Corver, N and van Riemsdijk, H. C. (eds.), Studies on Scrambling: Movement and Non-movement Approaches to Free Word-Order Phenomena. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 387430.Google Scholar
Neeleman, A. 1994b. Complex Predicates. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Neeleman, A. 2002. “Particle placement.” In Dehé, N., Jackendoff, R., McIntyre, A., and Silke, U. (eds.), Verb-Particle Explorations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 141164.Google Scholar
Neeleman, A. and van de Koot, H. 2008. “Dutch scrambling and the nature of discourse templates,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 11.2: 137189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, A. and Weerman, F. 1993. “The balance between syntax and morphology: Dutch particles and resultatives,” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 11: 433475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, A. and Weerman, F. 1999. Flexible Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. N. Leech, and J. Svartvik 1985.4 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rögnvaldsson, E. 1990. Um orðaröð og færslur í íslensku. Institute of Linguistics, University of Iceland, Reykjavík. [1982 M.A. thesis, University of Iceland, Reykjavík]Google Scholar
Svenonius, P. 1996. “The optionality of particle shift,” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 57: 4775.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, H. 2007. The Syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thraínsson, H. 2010. “Predictable and unpredictable sources of variable verb and adverb placement in Scandinavian,” Lingua 120: 10621088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vikner, S. 1995. Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic Languages. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vikner, S. 2007. “Object Shift.” In Everaert, M. and van Riemsdijk, H. C. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell: 392436.Google Scholar
Vikner, S. (2017). “Germanic verb particle variation.” In Aboh, E., Haeberli, E., Puskás, G., and Schönenberger, M. (eds.), Elements of Comparative Syntax – Theory and Description. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 371398.Google Scholar
Whelpton, M. 2007. “Building resultatives in Icelandic.” In Bainbridge, E. and Agbayani, B. (eds.), Proceedings of the 34th Western Conference on Linguistics 17. Fresno, CA: California State University: 478486.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, S. (2017). “Verb clusters, verb raising, and restructuring.” In Everaert, M. and van Riemsdijk, H. C. (eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Send book to Kindle

To send this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org 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 sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent 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
×

Send book to Dropbox

To send 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 sending content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Send book to Google Drive

To send 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 sending content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×