On the syntax and prosody of Verb Second and Clitic Second (original) (raw)

On the relation between V2 and the second position cliticization

Lingua, 2010

Following the standardly adopted hypothesis of a uniform diachronic source of V2 in Germanic and second position cliticization (2P), the paper investigates both operations in order to verify common claims concerning the motivation for the V2 and 2P movement. It shows that neither of them can be analyzed as a PF-driven phenomenon, nor is it possible to attribute them to a uniform syntactic trigger, such as Tense or Illocutionary Force feature checking. Special attention is given to the 2P effect in Slavic, whose properties show that it is necessary to draw a distinction between the ''generalized'' 2P, which is a syntactic process but seems unrelated to any feature checking mechanism, and Force-related 2P, which occurs for Force/Operator feature checking. The findings concerning 2P are applied to draw conclusions about the trigger of V2 in Germanic. It is argued that V2 covers a number of unrelated cases of movement or base generation, whose only common property is the position of the verb after the first constituent. Therefore, it seems incorrect to attribute all cases of V2 to a uniform syntactic trigger, in particular to Force marking. # This paper investigates possible links between the V2 requirement in Germanic and the second position cliticization (2P) in Slavic. The hypothesis that the two phenomena are related has a long tradition in linguistics, and dates back to Wackernagel's (1892) study of word order in early Indo European languages. Wackernagel observed that the word order was rather free in these languages, but a number of unrelated categories, such as pronouns, auxiliaries, adverbs and discourse particles, always appeared after the first word in the sentence. These elements behaved like clitics, as they were unaccented and occurred together forming clusters. Wackernagel declared that this was the basic word order rule in early Indo-European languages and tentatively suggested that it is reflected in contemporary languages, either in the form of second position cliticization (Wackernagel clitics), or the Verb Second rule in Germanic.

The rise and fall of second-position clitics

Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 2005

Historical accounts of the phenomenon of cliticization have previously documented only the loss of second-position clitics. This paper argues that the history of Bulgarian offers evidence for the rise of a second-position clitic system. It is demonstrated that the second-position clitics of Old Bulgarian were not directly inherited from Indo-European, but emerged from a system of post-verbal clitics. The findings provide evidence against the position that independent historical laws govern 'natural' directions of language change. In particular, they challenge the belief in the uniform tendency for clitics to develop into inflectional affixes. Instead, the findings suggest that language change reflects competition between grammatical options, which instantiate principles and parameters of UG based on the properties of the learning algorithm and the nature of the linguistic input, and which are not intrinsically ranked. An analysis of the historical change that led to the development of second-position clitics in Old Bulgarian is proposed that implicates a switch in the parameter of headedness of TP. Clitics in both the old and new grammars are attracted by T 0 . A change in the position of T 0 relative to its complement triggers the reanalysis of clitics from pronominals forming a complex head with V 0 to pronominals moving to the left edge of TP. The non-branching status of clitics makes them category-ambiguous (D 0 /DP), which allows them to merge in the syntactic structure as either heads or maximal projections. The paper also traces the eventual loss of the second-position clitic system in Bulgarian and argues that changes in the grammar of phrasal movement, specifically the loss of topicalization to Spec,TP, trigger the syntactic reanalysis of clitics from arguments moved and adjoined to TP, into adjuncts to functional heads in the extended projection of V 0 , resulting in the modern pre-verbal clitic system.

On second position clitics crosslinguistically

Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 2016

This paper examines factors that are responsible for the availability of second position clitic systems crosslinguistically based on a variety of unrelated languages, including (but not limited to) Pama-Nyungan, Uto-Aztecan, Iranian, Slavic, and Romance languages. The proposed account has consequences for a variety of phenomena, including the Lobeck (1990)/Saito and Murasugi (1990) generalization that functional heads can license ellipsis of their complement only when they undergo Spec-Head agreement, preposition-stranding, and the licensing of pro.

Clitic-Second Languages and Verb-Second languages in a diachronic perspective

SYNTAX OF THE WORLD’S LANGUAGES 3. 26 September, 2008

The paper discusses the relation of Germanic word order systems based on the Verb-Second Constraint (=V2 systems) and word order systems with clitic clusters in clausal 2nd position (= systems with Wackernagel’s Law ~ W-systems ~ systems with C-oriented clitics). V2 languages are typologically rare outside Europe, while languages with 2nd position clitics are attested both in Old and Modern Indo-European Languages (cf. Hittite, Avestan, Old Greek, Old Novgorod Russian, Serbo-Croat, Czech, Slovene, Pashto, Ossetic) and in a number of non-Indo-European languages, cf. Kabyle Berber (Afroasiatic), Lummi (Salish), Makah (Wakashan), Warlpiri and Djaru (Pama-Nyungan), Quiavini Zapotec (Otomangean), Mayo (Uto-Aztecan) etc. It is plausible that all languages with Wackernagel’s law, irrespective of their genetic origin, share a number of constraints on clitic placement (clusterization rules, movement patterns, orientation of clitics), cf. [1], [2], [12], [5].

Second Position Clitics in Degema : A Reanalysis

Volume 42.2, 2015

This paper reanalyzes so-called second position clitics in Degema as verb-adjacent clitics. The reanalysis is based on the observation that these clitics cannot be separated from the verb by intervening elements. Kari (2002a, 2003a and 2003b) analyzes subject clitics in Degema as second position clitics on the basis of the separability of these clitics from the (main) verb by intervening elements, such as auxiliary verbs and preverbal adverbs. With the reanalysis of so-called preverbal adverbs (Kari 2003a, 2003b and 2004) as auxiliary verbs in Kari (2008), the separability test that was used to argue in favour of second position clitics in the language is vitiated. Also, auxiliary verbs and preverbal adverbs that were hitherto considered intervening elements are no more seen as intervening elements but as part and parcel of the verb, which may consist of a main verb alone or a sequence of a main verb and a preceding auxiliary verb. A very important claim in the literature on clitics is that the presence of clitic doubling in a language is closely tied to the existence of verb-adjacent clitics (Franks and King 2000). Thus, the reanalysis of so-called second position clitics in Degema as verb-adjacent clitics provides a plausible explanation as regards the presence of clitic doubling in the language. Cet article réanalyse la prétendue seconde position des clitiques en degema come des clitiques adjacents au verbe. La réanalyse se base sur l’observation que ces clitiques ne peuvent se séparer du verbe par des éléments intermédiaires. Kari (2002a, 2003a et 2003b) analyse les clitiques sujet en degema comme de clitiques de seconde position sur la base de la séparabilité de ces clitiques du verbe (principal) par des éléments intermédiaires tels que les verbes auxiliaires et les adverbes pré-verbaux. Avec la réanalyse des prétendus adverbes préverbaux (Kari 2003a, 2003b et 2004) comme des verbes auxiliaires dans Kari (2008), le test de séparabilité qui avait été utilisé pour argumenter en faveur des clitiques de seconde position dans la langue est discrédité. En outre, les verbes auxiliaires et les adverbes préverbaux qui avaient été considérés jusque là comme des éléments intermédiaires ne le sont plus vus de cette manière mais comme une partie intégrante du verbe, qui peut consister d’un verbe principal seulement or d’une séquence du verbe principal et d’un verbe auxiliaire précédent. Une affirmation importante en cours dans la littérature sur les clitiques est que le redoublement de clitique dans une langue est étroitement lié à l’existence des clitiques adjacents aux verbes (Franks et King 2000). Ainsi, la réanalyse de prétendus clitiques de seconde position en degema comme des clitiques adjacents aux verbes fournit une explication plausible par rapport à la présence du redoublement de clitique dans la langue.

Introduction. The Grammar of Clitics

2002

Interest in clitics originates probably from their special character. As elements which are neither words nor affixes but share some of their properties, they are an especially fruitful ground to test grammatical theories. Such properties include phonological shape, allomorphy, cooccurence restrictions, position in the sentence, and semantic interpretation, thus covering a wide range of phenomena that affect all grammatical components. It is not at all clear whether the notion «clitic» corresponds to some linguistic primitive (or several), although some clitic-related categories, like clitic group as a prosodic category, have been proposed. The general properties of what has been classified as a clitic also varies, depending on the language and the specific clitic analyzed. Some authors, beginning with Zwicky (1977), follow the distinction simple clitic/special clitic. According to this view, simple clitics are usually deaccented, sometimes phonologically reduced function words, like the French preposition de, the reduced auxiliaries 's, 'd, 'll, etc. in English, or the enclitic conjunction que in Latin. This kind of clitics does not seem to present far-reaching syntactic differences when compared to their nonclitic counterparts or equivalent forms (French preposition contre, English is, would, will, etc., and Latin conjunction atque). (1) a. John is a lawyer. b. John's a lawyer. Special clitics, on the other hand, show many properties which are specific to them, and that their nonclitic counterparts do not share. Typical examples of this type are pronominal clitics, which attach to the verb, as in Romance, or to second position in the sentence, as in some Slavic languages. The special character of clitics is usually related to syntax or semantics. Consider the following Spanish examples, which display the pronominal clitic lo and its strong counterparts. (2) a. Míralo! look-IMP+it/him 'Look at it!'