Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

V2 word order

In , V2 word order, or verb-second word order, is a syntactic requiring the to occupy the second constituent position in main clauses, with precisely one element—such as the , an , or an object—preceding it. This rule enforces subject-verb inversion when non-subjects are fronted, distinguishing V2 languages from strict subject-verb-object (SVO) systems like . The phenomenon is asymmetric in most cases, applying primarily to root clauses while subordinate clauses often exhibit verb-final order. V2 is a hallmark of nearly all modern Germanic languages except English, including German, Dutch, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, and Icelandic, where it structures declarative sentences to prioritize topical elements. For instance, in German, the sentence Gestern hat Hans das Buch gelesen (Yesterday has Hans the book read) places the temporal adverb first, followed by the finite verb hat, with the subject Hans inverted afterward. Similarly, in Swedish, Igår läste jag boken (Yesterday read I the book) illustrates the same pattern, where the adverb igår triggers inversion of the subject jag. These examples underscore how V2 accommodates information structure, allowing flexible topicalization without disrupting the verb's fixed position. Historically, traces back to early , evolving from operator-driven patterns in Gothic—where it appeared in questions and negated clauses—to fuller implementations in by the 9th century. displayed a partial "pseudo-V2" system influenced by topic-verb adjacency, but this was lost between 1350 and 1425 during the transition to , leaving residual V2 effects in only in specific contexts like questions and topicalizations. In theoretical terms, generative analyses model V2 as verb movement to the (C) head, with the preverbal constituent in the specifier of , explaining its sensitivity to clause type and fronting operations. This framework highlights V2's role in unifying syntax and across s.

Fundamentals

Definition and Core Properties

V2 word order is a syntactic constraint observed in certain languages, particularly within the Germanic family, where the in declarative main clauses occupies the second position, with the first position filled by a single constituent such as the or a topicalized element. This positioning ensures that exactly one major phrase precedes the verb, distinguishing from more flexible arrangements. Core properties of include the movement of the to a functional head in the clausal structure, often analyzed as the (C) position in generative , which facilitates the placement of the after the constituent. When a non-subject element occupies the for or , subject- inversion occurs, with the subject appearing after the . This rule applies primarily to root clauses, while embedded clauses typically exhibit different ordering patterns, such as verb-final structures in underlying SOV systems. In contrast to rigid SVO languages like , where the subject precedes the regardless of , or SOV systems with -final placement, enforces a consistent second-position through obligatory and fronting. The term "" originates from the descriptive observation of the verb's second position in the , a convention established in linguistic analyses of Germanic . Although many of the world's languages exhibit some positioning constraints, strict is rare globally and predominantly features in the , excluding .

Basic Examples

A illustration of V2 word order appears in main clauses, where the occupies the second position regardless of the initial constituent. For example, in the adverb-initial "Gestern habe ich das Buch gelesen" (Yesterday have I the book read), the temporal "gestern" precedes the "habe," which inverts with the "ich," followed by the object and non-finite verb "gelesen." In subject-initial contexts, no inversion occurs, but the finite verb still follows the subject immediately. Dutch exemplifies this pattern: "De man at een appel" (The man ate an apple), where the subject "de man" is first and the finite verb "at" second, with the object "een appel" third. In non-subject-initial cases, such as "Een appel at de man" (An apple ate the man), the object fronts, triggering subject-verb inversion to maintain the finite verb in second position. Question forms in V2 languages often deviate to V1 order for yes-no interrogatives, yet remain integrated within the broader system of movement. In , yes-no questions place the first, as in "Kemur þú?" (Are you coming?), where the "kemur" precedes the subject "þú," contrasting with declarative like "Þú kemur" (You are coming). The following table presents representative examples from , , and main clauses, contrasting them with hypothetical non- orders (e.g., without movement or inversion, which are ungrammatical in these languages). These highlight the consistent second-position placement of the in declaratives.
LanguageV2 Order (Subject-Initial)Non-V2 Contrast (*Unacceptable)V2 Order (Adverb-Initial)Non-V2 Contrast (*Unacceptable)
GermanHans liest ein Buch. (Hans reads a book.)*Hans ein Buch liest.Gestern hat Hans ein Buch gelesen. (Yesterday has Hans a book read.)*Gestern Hans hat ein Buch gelesen.
DutchDe man at een appel. (The man ate an apple.)*De man een appel at.Gisteren at de man een appel. (Yesterday ate the man an apple.)*Gisteren de man at een appel.
SwedishEva gav inte Oscar pengar. (Eva gave not Oscar money.)*Eva inte gav Oscar pengar.Förmodligen gav Eva inte Oscar pengar. (Probably gave Eva not Oscar money.)*Förmodligen Eva gav inte Oscar pengar.
A common pitfall in understanding is assuming it applies to all verbs; in reality, it targets only finite (inflected) verbs, while non-finite forms like infinitives or participles remain or clause-final positions. For instance, in the example above, the finite "hat" moves to second, but the non-finite "gelesen" follows the object. This distinction arises because involves movement of the finite verb to a functional head (e.g., C-position) in the clause structure.

Theoretical Foundations

Classical Accounts

Classical accounts of V2 word order emerged in the 19th century through the work of comparative philologists examining the syntax of Germanic and . Early observations on verb placement in older Germanic varieties, including Gothic and , noted the finite verb's typical second position in main clauses, distinguishing them from subordinate ones and establishing V2 as a characteristic feature of Germanic syntax. In the late 19th century, Karl Brugmann and Berthold Delbrück extended these insights in their comparative grammars of , portraying V2 as a specific within the Germanic branch diverging from the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European () base order of subject-object-verb (SOV). These scholars emphasized how Germanic verb placement evolved from PIE structures, with V2 representing a shift toward more flexible while retaining underlying OV tendencies in embedded contexts. These accounts debated the universality of V2, viewing it not as a PIE but as a Germanic-specific development, possibly influenced by prosodic or pragmatic factors that prioritized the verb's prominence in root clauses. Early 20th-century grammarians built on these foundations, with analyzing V2 remnants in the in his A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles (1924). Jespersen observed how English retained traces of V2 in constructions like inverted questions (e.g., "Never have I seen such a sight") and adverb-fronted declaratives, attributing the partial loss of strict V2 to contact influences and analytic simplification. Overall, classical scholars like Brugmann, Delbrück, and Jespersen framed V2 as a hallmark of Germanic syntactic identity, emerging from PIE SOV through internal evolution rather than external borrowing, though they noted variations across dialects.

Syntactic Triggers

One influential hypothesis in generative syntax posits that V2 word order arises from a requirement for the left-peripheral specifier of the complementizer phrase (SpecCP) to be occupied by a maximal projection, such as a or . This occupation satisfies a structural criterion, prompting the finite verb to raise to the C head position and yield the second-position verb placement characteristic of V2 languages. Originally articulated by Travis (1984) in her parametric analysis of Germanic word order variations, this "LEFT trigger" accounts for the flexibility in what precedes the verb while enforcing its fixed position. Topicalization functions as a primary syntactic trigger for V2 compliance, involving the fronting of maximal projections ()—including objects, adverbials, or prepositional phrases—to the clause-initial position to serve functions like topic or focus marking. In V2 languages such as and , this fronting is obligatory in clauses to fill SpecCP and activate to C, thereby maintaining the V2 pattern even when the is not initial. This mechanism integrates syntactic structure with information-structural needs, ensuring that discourse-salient elements precede the verb. A key distinction in triggering V2 lies in the presence or absence of complementizers: root clauses without an overt complementizer in C leave that head empty, compelling the finite verb to move to C to project the and enforce , whereas embedded clauses with a complementizer fill C and block such movement, resulting in verb-final order. This complementizer-based account, developed by den Besten (1983), explains the asymmetric distribution of primarily in matrix contexts across . Empirical support for these triggers comes from corpus analyses of , where adherence in main clauses exceeds 95% in written registers, reflecting the rule's syntactic rigidity despite occasional discourse-driven variations. For instance, Hoberg's (1981) examination of journalistic texts confirms near-universal conformity in declarative main clauses, with deviations rare and typically attributable to stylistic factors. Alternative syntactic triggers for V2 include the illocutionary force of assertion, which licenses verb movement to C in root clauses to encode declarative force, independent of peripheral filling. This perspective, explored by Wechsler (1991), ties V2 to semantic-pragmatic properties of clause types rather than purely structural requirements. Similarly, proposals invoking clause type marking suggest that V2 signals root status through dedicated functional projections in the left periphery.

Clause Types and Contexts

Root Clauses

Root clauses, also known as main or independent clauses, are those that stand alone without being under another clause and serve as the primary unit of discourse in sentences. In such as , , and the Scandinavian languages, word order is obligatory in these root clauses, positioning the as constituent regardless of the nature of the initial element. The core mechanism enforcing V2 in root clauses is the inversion rule, whereby the moves to position, inverting with the subject if a non-subject constituent—such as an , object, or prepositional —is fronted to the initial position. For instance, in , a subject-initial declarative like Der Mann kommt heute ("The man comes today") follows SVO order with the verb second, while fronting an yields Heute kommt der Mann ("Today comes the man"), where the subject inverts postverbally to maintain V2. This rule ensures a single constituent precedes the , distinguishing root clauses from other structures. V2 in root clauses plays a key discourse role by supporting a topic-comment structure, where the fronted constituent typically functions as the topic—providing given or contextual information—while the remainder of the clause elaborates as the comment. This fronting allows speakers to highlight relevant discourse elements, such as scene-setting adverbials or contrastive objects, thereby organizing information flow in narrative or conversational contexts. While is strictly enforced in most declaratives, certain exceptions occur in clauses, such as exclamatives (e.g., Wie schön das ist!) or imperatives (e.g., Komm her!), which often exhibit V1 order without a preverbal constituent to convey emphasis or direct commands. studies confirm the high adherence to V2 in clauses; for example, in the Nordic Dialect of modern , approximately 99% of declaratives comply with V2, with violations being virtually absent in 20th-century data.

Embedded Clauses

In , the V2 constraint that obligatorily positions the in the second position of root clauses typically relaxes or is prohibited in embedded clauses, resulting in a verb-final or medial that reflects the underlying SOV structure of these languages. This main-embedded asymmetry is a hallmark of asymmetric V2 languages such as , , and most varieties, where embedded clauses exhibit verb movement to a lower position (e.g., I or v) rather than to C, leading to orders like subject-auxiliary-verb or object-verb-final. A notable exception arises with bridge verbs—such as those denoting speech acts (e.g., "say") or (e.g., "think" or "believe")—which in some languages license embedded V2 by allowing the finite verb to move to C even within subordinate contexts. In , for instance, embedded V2 is grammatical under non-factive bridge predicates like glauben ("believe"), as in Ich glaube, er kommt morgen ("I believe he comes tomorrow"), where the embedded clause mirrors root V2 syntax and conveys discourse-new information. This licensing is tied to the semantic properties of the matrix verb, which do not presuppose the truth or givenness of the embedded proposition, contrasting with factive verbs like wissen ("know") that block V2 and enforce verb-final order. The occurrence of embedded V2 also varies by clause type, with complement clauses showing higher rates than relative or wh-clauses, where V2 is rarer due to structural constraints on operator movement or . In complement clauses under verbs, V2 signals illocutionary force or assertion, but in relative clauses (e.g., German der Mann, der das Buch liest "the man who reads the book"), the verb remains medial or final to maintain restrictive interpretation. Wh-clauses, such as indirect questions, overwhelmingly prohibit V2 across , preserving the wh-element in initial position without verb raising to C. Cross-linguistic variation is pronounced: enforces strict non-V2 in all embedded clauses, with the finite verb invariably final regardless of the matrix predicate, as in Ik denk dat hij komt (" that he comes"). In contrast, permits partial embedded V2 more freely, even in that-clauses under a broader range of predicates, reflecting its symmetric V2 tendencies and allowing orders like Ik vel azoy denken, er kumt ("I will so think, he comes"). Empirical studies, including corpus analyses of (with embedded V2 rates of 0.98–6.36% varying by register) and experimental data on , confirm that these patterns correlate with discourse factors like information novelty, supporting the role of semantic licensing over pure syntax.

Non-Finite Verbs

In V2 languages such as and , non-finite verbs—including infinitives and participles—remain in their base position at the right edge of the (VP), while only the moves to the second position in the . This distinction arises because finiteness encodes tense and features that trigger to the C-head in clauses, whereas non-finite forms lack these properties and thus stay lower in the structure. As a result, complex verb clusters in V2 clauses exhibit a head-final order among non-finite elements, reflecting the underlying OV base structure of these languages. A clear illustration appears in perfect constructions, where the finite occupies the V2 position and the past participle follows the object in final position. For instance, in , Gestern habe ich das Buch gelesen ('Yesterday have I the book read') places the finite habe second, with the non-finite gelesen at the end. This pattern holds across main clauses, ensuring that non-finite forms do not participate in the V2 constraint. Modal verbs behave similarly when finite: they move to the V2 position, stranding the associated non-finite main verb in final position. In Ich muss das Buch lesen ('I must the book read'), the finite modal muss is second, while the infinitive lesen remains at the clause's right periphery. This separation underscores that only the highest, finite element in the verbal complex undergoes fronting. The consistent separation of finite and non-finite verbs in V2 systems supports the split-VP , which posits distinct functional projections for tense/ (hosting finite forms) and lexical verb structure (hosting non-finites) in . This layered architecture explains why finite verbs can extract independently while non-finites remain .

Variations and Exceptions

V1 Word Order

V1 word order represents a notable deviation from the canonical verb-second (V2) constraint in , occurring primarily in specific illocutionary contexts where the finite verb occupies the initial position in the . This is obligatory in yes-no questions, as in Kommt er? ('Is he coming?'), where the absence of a wh-element or topicalized constituent leaves the verb in first position. Imperatives similarly exhibit V1 order, such as Komm her! ('Come here!'), prioritizing directive force over the standard required in declaratives. Polar exclamatives, expressing surprise or emphasis, also trigger V1, exemplified by War das ein Sturm! ('What a storm that was!'), which conveys heightened emotional evaluation without an overt fronted element. In theoretical terms, structures are often analyzed as compatible with the broader system, arising when the first clausal position—typically the specifier of the complementizer phrase ()—remains empty or is occupied by a null force marker encoding , imperative, or exclamative illocution. This null element satisfies the V2 requirement by attracting the to the head of CP, distinguishing from true violations of the constraint. Such an account aligns V1 with root clauses, where illocutionary force is overtly realized, though the pattern is restricted to non-declarative or highly marked declarative uses in modern Germanic varieties. Cross-linguistically within Germanic, V1 application varies: in , it is strictly enforced in yes-no questions, with the finite verb invariably initial (Er hann kominn? 'Has he arrived?'), reflecting the language's rigid adherence to V2 in other contexts. In contrast, some permit optional V1 in declaratives for discourse-linking purposes, such as topic continuity or contrastive focus, allowing flexibility not found in standard or . Corpus analyses of spoken indicate that V1 clauses, encompassing questions, imperatives, and exclamatives, are more prevalent in oral registers over written ones. Historically, served as a precursor to the full system in early , with [Old High German](/page/Old High German) texts showing frequent V1 declaratives that gradually yielded to obligatory by the period, marking the consolidation of V2 as a defining trait. This evolutionary shift from predominant V1 to V2 is attributed to the of information-structural requirements, where an initial topical element became mandatory in root declaratives, while V1 persisted in force-marking contexts.

V3 Word Order

V3 word order constitutes a deviation from the canonical constraint in , characterized by the appearing in the third position due to multiple constituents occupying the preverbal domain, often termed the "forefield." This pattern typically arises when two are fronted, such as an followed by the or a cluster of adverbs, rather than a single topical triggering verb movement to the second position. In contrast to strict V2, where only one constituent precedes the , V3 reflects flexibility in the left periphery, particularly in informal or dialectal registers. Triggers for V3 commonly involve multiple fronted elements that compete for specifier positions in the , such as temporal or manner preceding the , or coordinated structures where an initial does not fully satisfy the V2 requirement. For instance, in urban , V3 emerges after an initial adverbial when the follows without inversion, as in the spoken example i år jeg ringede til banken ("this year I called the bank"), where the temporal adverb i år occupies the first position, the jeg the second, and the ringede the third. Similarly, in , V3 occurs in embedded questions, with a wh-phrase fronted before a topical and the , deviating from matrix V2 patterns and allowing multiple projections in the left periphery. Dialectal prevalence of V3 varies significantly across Germanic varieties, being more frequent in spoken and non-standard forms. In spoken Danish, particularly in multilingual urban contexts like , V3 appears in narratives or informal speech to mark epistemic stance or temporal sequencing, though it remains stigmatized in formal registers. In contrast, V3 is rare in , occurring sporadically in colloquial speech or after central adverbials like gestern ("yesterday"), but it is more attested in Bavarian dialects, where subject postponement after initial adverbs leads to verb-third configurations. Yiddish exhibits V3 primarily in subordinate contexts, maintaining stricter V2 in root clauses. Theoretical debates surrounding V3 center on whether it represents a violation of the V2 constraint or an extension of V2 syntax accommodating multiple specifiers within a single CP projection. Proponents of the multiple specifiers approach argue that V3 results from two elements checking features in distinct specifier positions of C, as observed in and persisting in dialects, without necessitating additional functional projections. Alternatively, analyses invoking multiple projections posit expanded left-peripheral structure to host the extra constituent, aligning V3 with broader cross-linguistic patterns of . These views draw on contrasts with standard V2 triggers, such as single XP-fronting, which rigidly positions the verb second. Corpus evidence from the 1980s and early 1990s, particularly studies on Bavarian and related dialects, underscores V3's systematic occurrence beyond random errors. Alessandra Tomaselli's analysis of texts, extended to modern Bavarian varieties like Cimbrian, documents V3 in root declaratives with multiple frontings, revealing frequencies tied to adverbial clusters and subject inversion patterns in spoken data from southern . These findings, based on historical corpora like the Isidor translation, highlight V3 as a persistent feature in non-standard speech, informing ongoing debates about V2's parametric boundaries.

Perspective Effects

In , the concept of "" refers to the speaker's subjective viewpoint, which influences the choice of constituents fronted to the clause-initial position in V2 root clauses, thereby affecting subject-verb inversion. This pragmatic layer modulates syntactic operations, as fronting often aligns with topic-comment structures where the fronted element establishes the topic from the speaker's . Early analyses highlighted how such viewpoint-driven fronting extends beyond rigid syntactic rules, allowing flexibility in information packaging while maintaining V2 order. V2 compliance in root clauses tends to be stricter in formal written registers compared to colloquial speech, where deviations or relaxed fronting occur more frequently due to shifts emphasizing immediacy or shared . For instance, in , topic choice—such as fronting a temporal for —can trigger inversion more readily in formal than in spoken , where subject-initial orders may prevail for directness. This register-based variation underscores how speaker interacts with demands to influence adherence. Post-2000 eye-tracking studies demonstrate that modulates online processing, with readers showing faster integration of fronted elements when they align with expected information structure, such as cues signaling topic prominence. In visual-world paradigms, participants exhibited anticipatory eye movements toward referents in sentences where verbal information and reflected the speaker's viewpoint, reducing processing costs for perspective-congruent structures. These findings reveal how facilitates syntactic resolution during . In certain embedding contexts, such as complements of bridge verbs, perspective-driven V2 can emerge, allowing root-like fronting in otherwise non-V2 embedded clauses when the speaker's viewpoint projects assertoric force. This interaction permits informational prominence to override standard embedding constraints, as seen in and where topic-fronting in bridge contexts maintains V2 order. Cross-dialectal differences show stronger perspective effects in Norwegian Bokmål, where V2 variation is more sensitive to discourse viewpoint due to dialectal influences and register shifts, compared to , which exhibits stricter V2 adherence with minimal pragmatic modulation. In , fronting choices reflect greater flexibility in spoken varieties, amplifying perspective's role, whereas Icelandic's conservative syntax limits such influences.

Language-Specific Developments

English

In Old English (pre-1100), the language exhibited a verb-second (V2) word order in main clauses, with the finite verb typically occupying the second position, though V3 and V4 orders occurred occasionally, regardless of whether the subject or another constituent initiated the clause. This structure typically positioned objects after the verb, resulting in patterns such as subject-verb-object (SVO) when the subject was initial or adverb-verb-subject-object (Adv-V-S-O) otherwise. For instance, in sentences like "Þa cwæð se biscop" ("Then said the bishop"), the verb follows the adverbial element. Quantitative analyses of Old English texts indicate that approximately 95% of main clauses featured the finite verb in the second, third, or fourth position. During the period (1100–1500), English underwent a gradual shift from to a more rigid subject-verb-object (SVO) order, particularly in main clauses, influenced by changes in behavior and contact with Norman . , which in often cliticized to the verb and appeared to the left of it even in V2 contexts, increasingly failed to invert with non-subject-initial elements, disrupting the V2 constraint; by the early 13th century, inversion rates for pronoun subjects dropped to as low as 5% with NP complements in southern dialects. Norman French influence contributed by promoting analytic structures and reducing inflectional morphology, which favored fixed SVO positioning to maintain clarity amid case loss. Studies using the Penn-Helsinki Parsed of Middle English (PPCME) show that while early Middle English texts maintained high inversion rates (e.g., 93% for NP subjects with NP complements), these declined sharply by the mid-14th century, with V2 compliance falling below 20% in later samples. The full loss of generalized V2 occurred by the 1400s, marking English's divergence from other , though auxiliary verbs partially preserved V2-like inversion in certain constructions. Corpus evidence from the and PPCME confirms this trajectory, with V2 rates in main clauses dropping from over 70% in late to around 20% in late , particularly in southern and western dialects by the mid-14th century, reflecting dialectal variation and the rise of SVO as the default. Modern English retains vestiges of V2 in specific contexts, such as yes/no questions ("Does he go?"), where the auxiliary verb inverts with the subject, adverb-topicalized clauses ("Never have I seen such a sight"), and direct quotations ("He said, 'I am tired'"). These remnants, often involving auxiliaries, echo the historical V2 mechanism but are restricted to formal or stylistic uses, without the broad applicability of Old English.

Scandinavian Languages

In the Mainland Scandinavian languages—Danish, , and —the word order is strictly enforced in root clauses, where the occupies the second position regardless of the subject-verb inversion following . This structure ensures that declarative main clauses consistently place the after the first constituent, such as a , , or object, as in Swedish Igår läste jag boken ("Yesterday I read the book"). In embedded clauses, however, V2 is generally prohibited, resulting in verb-final order, though optional V2 occurs after bridge verbs like sige ("say") or tænke ("think") in and , where the embedded clause retains assertive force similar to a root clause. These embedded V2 instances are discourse-linked, often involving non-subject , and reflect the same syntactic structure as root clauses in Mainland Scandinavian. In contrast, the Insular Scandinavian languages—Icelandic and Faroese—exhibit near-absolute V2 adherence, extending to many embedded contexts beyond bridge verbs, including subject-initial declaratives and certain adverbial clauses. For instance, Faroese permits V2 in embedded clauses introduced by at ("that"), where the finite verb precedes adverbs, as in Eg veit [at hon kom í gær] ("I know that she came yesterday"). Expletive subjects, such as Icelandic það ("it") or Faroese tað, influence positioning by occupying the subject slot in V2 structures, facilitating verb placement after initial non-subjects while maintaining clause integrity. This rigidity underscores the Insular varieties' conservative syntax compared to Mainland flexibility. Dialectal variations introduce exceptions, notably V3 (verb-third) orders in spoken Danish urban dialects, where multiple elements precede the , often for interactional emphasis in or epistemic claims. Examples include time adverbials or discourse particles like så ("then") initiating clauses, as in Danish I går så kom han ("Yesterday then came he"), supplementing standard without fully eroding it. In Faroese dialects, greater fronting is tolerated in non-V2 contexts, with finite verbs more readily preceding certain adverbs like ofta ("often") than negation, showing regional differences such as higher acceptance in northeastern areas like . The pattern has remained stable in Scandinavian languages since , where robust V2 orders were already attested in Old texts, preserving the finite verb's second position across main and some subordinate clauses without the shifts seen in related languages. Recent studies from the on bilingual Scandinavian-English speakers, particularly heritage in , reveal erosion of V2, with increased variable word order in root clauses due to English influence, as heritage speakers produce more non-V2 declaratives in subject-initial contexts. This contact-induced variation highlights potential long-term changes in bilingual communities.

Continental Germanic Languages

In Continental Germanic languages, which include , , , and , verb-second (V2) word order is a defining syntactic feature of root clauses, where the finite verb consistently occupies the second position following a single constituent, often a topic or . This structure enforces a rigid mechanism, distinguishing these languages from non-V2 systems like English. However, embedded clauses typically exhibit verb-final order, reflecting an underlying SOV base structure, though exceptions and variations arise across languages and registers. German exemplifies the strict adherence to V2 in root clauses, as in Gestern hat Hans das Buch gelesen ("Yesterday has Hans the book read"), where the adverbial gestern precedes the finite verb hat. In most embedded clauses, however, the finite verb remains clause-final, yielding SOV order, such as ...dass Hans das Buch gelesen hat ("...that Hans the book read has"). This root-embedded asymmetry is a hallmark of Standard German syntax, with embedded V2 largely restricted to specific contexts like asyndetic complements under non-factive predicates. Dutch and Afrikaans follow a similar pattern to German, maintaining V2 in root clauses but defaulting to verb-final order in embedded contexts. For instance, Dutch root: Morgen koop ik een fiets ("Tomorrow buy I a bike"); embedded: ...dat ik een fiets koop ("...that I a bike buy"). Colloquial Dutch, however, permits more frequent V3 orders—where an or particle intervenes between and —especially in informal speech, as in Ik heb morgen een fiets gekocht deviating toward SVAuxV patterns. Afrikaans mirrors this but shows greater erosion of V2 under English influence, with increasing SVO-like structures in modern usage, such as relaxed adverb-verb- sequences in spoken varieties, reflecting contact-induced drift from traditional Germanic V2 rigidity. Yiddish deviates notably by allowing broader embedded V2, particularly in complement clauses, where the finite verb can surface second even under complementizers, as in Ikh veys az er hot dos getun ("I know that he has that done") permitting V2 after az. This generalized V2 pattern, more prevalent in Eastern Yiddish, stems from the language's topic-prominent nature, which favors topicalized elements preceding the verb in discourse-linked contexts, contrasting with German's stricter restrictions. Dialectal variations within Continental Germanic further highlight flexibility in embedded clauses. Bavarian dialects, for example, permit V2 in select embedded environments, such as under certain complementizers or in adverbial clauses, allowing structures like Er frog ob er kumt ("He asks if he comes") with verb-seconding despite the wh-complementizer. Similarly, Low German dialects occasionally license embedded V2 in contact-influenced or informal settings, adapting root-like topicalization to subordinate contexts, though verb-final remains dominant. Corpus-based studies from the 1990s underscore the rarity of embedded V2 in .

Romance and Other Languages

In medieval , main clauses exhibited partial verb-second () word order, where the finite verb typically occupied the second position regardless of the initial constituent's nature, akin to Germanic patterns but asymmetrically applied only in root contexts. This property emerged as an innovation from Latin's underlying subject-object-verb (SOV) base, potentially influenced by contact with Frankish during the early medieval period, though the exact mechanisms remain debated. By the , this system had largely eroded, giving way to a more rigid subject-verb-object (SVO) order in declarative clauses, with residual inversions persisting in questions and exclamatives. Medieval Occitan similarly displayed V2 characteristics in main clauses, driven by a low left-peripheral head (Fin) that enforced verb movement after an initial XP, yielding descriptively 'relaxed' V2 without strict subject postposition. Unlike stricter Germanic varieties, Occitan permitted some variation, such as topic continuity without full inversion, but maintained V2 as a core syntactic feature across prose and verse texts from the 12th to 14th centuries. This system, too, declined by the late medieval period under pressures from analogical leveling and shift toward SVO, paralleling the trajectory in neighboring . Classical (roughly 16th–18th centuries) showed partial V2 tendencies, particularly in interrogative contexts where the finite verb followed an initial wh-element or subject, though non-V2 orders like subject-verb were also attested, indicating an unstable hybrid system. In affirmative declaratives, V2 was less consistent, with pro-drop and adverbial fronting sometimes triggering inversion, but the overall favored SVO flexibility over rigid V2 enforcement. Beyond Romance, V2 appears in diverse non-Germanic contexts, often as stylistic or discourse-driven phenomena. In Welsh, (c. 1150–1500) developed V2 orders from earlier verb-initial patterns through the grammaticalization of hanging topics and focused clefts into preverbal positions, creating inversion in narrative and literary registers. Modern Welsh retains stylistic V2 in formal or emphatic clauses, but defaults to verb-initial () in colloquial speech, marking a partial retention rather than inheritance. , a Finno-Ugric language, enforces partial V2 in written affirmative declaratives, with the finite verb in second position in approximately 95% of cases, though spoken varieties allow more adverb-verb-subject deviations. Non-Indo-European languages provide further instances of convergence. Ingush, a Northeast Caucasian language, maintains strict V2 in main clauses, where the finite verb follows an initial constituent (often a topic or ), integrated with its ergative morphology and verb-final tendencies in subordinates. Similarly, Tohono O'odham (Uto-Aztecan) exhibits verb-second patterns in constructions, with the auxiliary obligatorily in second position after a fronted element, serving as the default order while permitting auxiliary-initial exceptions for emphasis. Rare V2 traits surface in isolates and peripheral languages, such as (a Germanic isolate spoken in ), which alternates between V2 and SVO systems, allowing speakers to toggle verb inversion based on discourse needs in main clauses. In Indo-Aryan Kotgarhi, spoken in northern , fragmentary V2-like orders appear in certain emphatic or question constructions, diverging from the family's typical SOV base, though documentation remains sparse. Research on V2 in peripheral Romance varieties like Romansh (a Rhaeto-Romance dialect) highlights ongoing gaps, with post-2000 studies limited to embedded V2 and left-periphery effects, but broader Austronesian influences or comparative analyses underexplored despite potential contact scenarios in multilingual regions.

Structural Analyses

Dependency Grammar

In , verb-second () word order is analyzed as a head-initial dependency relation where the finite verb serves as the root of the , governing all other constituents while adhering to a linear precedence constraint that allows exactly one dependent to precede it in the surface order. This framework treats the as a dependency tree with the verb at its core, emphasizing binary head-dependent relations over phrasal groupings. The approach aligns with the foundational principles of structural syntax, where emerges from precedence rules applied to the dependency structure rather than from underlying hierarchical rearrangements. Dependency trees under this analysis depict the finite verb as the central node, with subjects, objects, adverbials, and other modifiers as its dependents; a key linearization mechanism is the left sibling constraint, which prohibits more than one dependent from appearing immediately to the left of the verb unless specified otherwise by clause type or embedding. For instance, in a main clause like the German "Gestern habe ich das Buch gelesen" (Yesterday have I the book read), "gestern" (yesterday) is the sole left dependent (adverbial) of the root verb "habe," satisfying the V2 requirement through precedence ordering among siblings. This structure naturally extends to variations, such as verb-final tendencies in infinitivals, by relaxing the precedence rules without altering the underlying dependencies. One major advantage of this dependency-based account is its ability to handle free without invoking operations: any single constituent can occupy the initial position as the leftmost dependent, with the verb following due to precedence, thereby capturing the discourse-driven flexibility of clauses in . Additionally, it readily accommodates V3 orders—where more than one element precedes the verb—as cases of multiple left dependents, often arising in coordinated structures or specific illocutionary contexts, without needing ad hoc adjustments to the core tree. Lucien Tesnière's Éléments de syntaxe structurale (1959) provides the theoretical bedrock for these analyses, introducing dependency trees (stemmata) and applying them to syntactic relations in languages with flexible orders, including early extensions to Germanic patterns by later scholars. Critics argue that dependency grammars are less adept at explaining the systematic deviation from V2 in embedded clauses, such as the verb-final order in subordinate clauses of languages like German or Dutch, where phrase structure models offer clearer hierarchical distinctions through designated positions like CP and TP projections. In non-projective embeddings involving long-distance dependencies, dependency approaches may require global ordering rules that violate locality principles, complicating parsing and explanatory adequacy compared to constituency-based alternatives.

Generative Grammar

In generative grammar, particularly within the Government and Binding (GB) framework, the V2 word order in main clauses of Germanic languages is analyzed as resulting from the finite verb raising to the complementizer (C) head position, accompanied by movement of some maximal projection (XP), often a topicalized element, to the specifier of CP (SpecCP). This derives the surface structure where the finite verb appears in second position, with the subject typically remaining in SpecIP unless displaced. The verb movement follows a stepwise path: from its base position in V, through I (inflection), to C, adhering to the Head Movement Constraint. This analysis posits that CP projection is obligatory in root clauses, enabling the attraction of the verb to C via feature percolation or attraction. Hans den Besten, in his seminal 1983 work on Dutch and German syntax, formalized V2 as a form of topicalization, where the preverbal XP moves to SpecCP for operator-variable relations, and the finite verb raises to C to satisfy selectional requirements, ensuring that complementizers and finite verbs are in complementary distribution. This account explains why V2 enforces a single preverbal constituent in root contexts, treating apparent exceptions as involving adjunction or multiple specifiers. In embedded clauses, V2 is generally absent in asymmetric V2 languages like and , as the presence of a complementizer occupies C, blocking V-to-C movement and preventing XP fronting to SpecCP; instead, the clause projects only as with the verb in I, resulting in subject-verb inversion or final verb position in OV languages. This clause-type asymmetry underscores the role of C-projection in licensing root phenomena. Within the developed post-1995, V2 phenomena are reinterpreted through feature-checking mechanisms, where the C head bears an EPP (Extended Projection Principle) feature that attracts an XP to SpecCP, and the finite verb moves to C to check tense or agreement features under Attract/Move. Alternatively, some analyses attribute the effect to an EPP feature on T driving generalized subject or XP movement, with V-to-T-to-C as a satisfying locality. This framework emphasizes economy, deriving V2 from universal computational principles rather than language-specific parameters alone. Challenges to the standard analysis include accounting for orders (e.g., in yes/no questions or imperatives, where no XP precedes the verb in C) and V3 deviations (e.g., in coordinated or contexts), which suggest variability in specifier filling or blocking effects. Recent cartographic approaches extend the left periphery into a finer-grained of functional projections (e.g., ForceP, TopP, FocP, FinP), allowing multiple XPs to map pragmatically motivated positions while preserving V-in-C, thus addressing exceptions without abandoning movement-based derivations.

References

  1. [1]
    [PDF] V2 - George Walkden
    Feb 11, 2017 · A verb-second (V2) language is one in which the finite verb is obligatorily the second constituent – either in main clauses (asymmetric V2), or ...
  2. [2]
    The order of subjects and verbs | Academic Writing in English
    V2 stands for 'verb second'. In a V2 language, the predicate verb is always in second position in declarative main clauses, where a declarative clause is a ...<|separator|>
  3. [3]
    V2 is not difficult to all learners in all contexts: a cross-sectional ...
    Dec 26, 2024 · Our study shows that V2 is not difficult for all learners. Learners whose L1 is a V2 language had a significantly higher share of correct V2 word order, and ...
  4. [4]
    [PDF] (Three) Types of V2 in Early Germanic
    • Earlier stages of Germanic exhibit word order patterns similar to the V2 phenomenon which is characteristic of many Modern Germanic languages. • At a ...
  5. [5]
    14 The verb-second (V2) phenomenon
    The V2 phenomenon is where finite verbs are second in main clauses, not final, and move to C, common in Germanic languages, but not modern English.
  6. [6]
    [PDF] On the historical core of V2 in Germanic
    Traditionally, the V2 phenomenon is considered to be an innovation which is associated with the Germanic branch of the Indo-European language family (the older.
  7. [7]
    Verb Positions and Basic Clause Structure in Germanic
    ### Summary of Verb Positions and Basic Clause Structure in Germanic
  8. [8]
    None
    Summary of each segment:
  9. [9]
    [PDF] subject and object positions in swedish - Stanford University
    As is well-known, Swedish is a verb-second language, with the unmarked word order standardly assumed to be as in (1). Examples with subject, object and an ...
  10. [10]
    Deutsche Grammatik : Grimm, Jacob, 1785-1863 - Internet Archive
    Apr 15, 2009 · Deutsche Grammatik. by: Grimm, Jacob, 1785-1863. Publication date: 1819. Topics: Germanic languages, German language. Publisher: Göttingen : Bei ...Missing: verb position Gothic High
  11. [11]
    A compendium of the comparative grammar of the Indo-European ...
    Oct 24, 2007 · A compendium of the comparative grammar of the Indo-European, Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin languages;. by: Schleicher, August, 1821-1868; ...Missing: verb placement Germanic V2
  12. [12]
    https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-011-3196-4_10
  13. [13]
    [PDF] Nonnative acquisition of Verb Second - DiVA portal
    Hoberg (1981) finds, in a corpus study of written German, slightly more than 50% of the main clauses to be subject-initial, second come those starting with an ...
  14. [14]
    What usage can tell us about grammar: Embedded verb second in ...
    Aug 27, 2019 · ... V2 in Swedish. Embedded V2 has been argued to represent a more ... force of assertion. The predicates in (2) however, select for a ...
  15. [15]
    [PDF] The grammar-pragmatics interface and the German prefield
    According to Frey (2004), SpecFP represents the middle field topic position characterized in (27) (cf. Holmberg & Nikanne 2002 for a similar proposal for ...
  16. [16]
    http://www.sfu.ca/xsyn/Theses/Nederveen_thesis.pdf
  17. [17]
    [PDF] Embedded Verb Second in German: Experiments at the Syntax ...
    Aug 12, 2020 · German is a Verb Second (V2) language with a canonical verb-final word order in embedded clauses. If a language has V2 effects in main ...
  18. [18]
    On the Symmetry of V2 in Yiddish and Some of Its Consequences for ...
    Apr 26, 2022 · Embedded V2 occurs quite freely in Yiddish—more so than in other purportedly symmetric V2 languages such as Icelandic. There are also cases of ...
  19. [19]
    [PDF] Finiteness and Verb Placement in German: A Challenge for Early ...
    In typical monolingual acquisition of German, nonfinite verbs in V2 position are rarely attested, suggesting a strong relationship between mastery of verb ...
  20. [20]
    [PDF] V2 Word Order in German - Ozzie Fallick
    1. Introduction. In languages with V2 word order, the finite verb must be the second element in the sentence. German, like several other Germanic languages, ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
  21. [21]
    (PDF) Object Agreement Phrases and the Split-VP Hypothesis
    Jan 28, 2015 · ... split-VP hypothesis, according to which the base structure of the lexical domain of the verb is as indicated in (12a). OV languages are ...
  22. [22]
    [PDF] Two Heads Aren't Always Better Than One
    Once the complicating factors of the V2 effect are controlled for, we find that the VO Germanic languages split neatly into the two groups proposed in the ...
  23. [23]
    [PDF] Variable Verb Positions in German Exclamatives - Universität Leipzig
    Aug 9, 2017 · The existence of polar exclamatives has been reported for German, too. ... The difference between V1/V2 exclamatives and V-final exclamatives ...
  24. [24]
    [PDF] On the Composition of COMP and Parameters of V2
    In Yiddish, V2 is achieved by V-movement to INFL, rather than to Comp. That is why in embedded clauses V2 is possible even in the presence of the ...
  25. [25]
    From V1 to V2 in West Germanic - ScienceDirect.com
    In this paper, we show that verb placement in OHG is determined by information-structural (IS-) conditions: the verb serves to separate the aboutness topic from ...
  26. [26]
    [PDF] VERB-SECOND AND VERB-FIRST IN THE HISTORY OF ICELANDIC*
    Since V1 conditionals are not generally considered to be matrix declara- tives and, like yes/no-questions and imperative clauses, are widely attested across ...
  27. [27]
    Discourse-related V1 declaratives in Dutch - ResearchGate
    Jun 13, 2020 · This paper discusses two types of discourse-related V1 declaratives in Dutch. The first type involves a missing argument.Missing: dialects | Show results with:dialects
  28. [28]
    (PDF) The hidden life of V3: An overlooked word order variant on ...
    Nov 5, 2020 · In examples as (i), there are two constituents, rather than one, occupying the domain in front of the finite verb (the "forefield") in a ...
  29. [29]
    [PDF] V2/V3 in Old High German: multiple projections vs. multiple specifiers
    This paper: Analysis of multiple fronting/V3 in (early) OHG in terms of multiple ... If there are two elements that may in principle check/value features of C, C ...
  30. [30]
    (PDF) The Upper Functional Domain in Yiddish - ResearchGate
    Dec 27, 2017 · 'Who ate a turnip?' Embedded questions have a V3 order, with the wh-phrase preceding both the topic and the finite verb ...
  31. [31]
    [PDF] V3 AFTER CENTRAL ADVERBIALS IN GERMAN
    The relative frequency is here estimated as percentage of IP-MAT, i.e., main clauses in the parsed corpus, not as per- centage of IP-MAT-initial central ...
  32. [32]
    [PDF] Language contact and V3 in Germanic varieties new and old
    Jun 18, 2016 · word order characteristic of standard German; occasional examples of V3 are found in clauses introduced by weil 'because' (Heike Wiese, p.c.) ...
  33. [33]
    13 Cases of Verb Third in Old High German - Oxford Academic
    Oct 31, 2023 · Tomaselli, Alessandra, 'Cases of Verb Third in Old High German*', Clause Structure and Language Change ( New York, NY , 1995; online edn ...Missing: Bavarian | Show results with:Bavarian
  34. [34]
    [PDF] Diachronic Development in Isolation: The Loss of V2 Phe- nomena ...
    Abstract: This paper deals with the syntactic development of Cimbrian, a German dia- lect, which was spoken for centuries in some enclaves in northern Italy ...
  35. [35]
    From V1 to V2 in West Germanic - ScienceDirect.com
    Declarative clauses in Old High German (OHG) display V1- and V2-orders. In this paper, we show that verb placement in OHG is determined by ...
  36. [36]
    Verb-second word order after German weil 'because'
    Apr 1, 2016 · In present-day spoken German, subordinate clauses introduced by the conjunction weil 'because' occur with two orders of subject, finite verb, and object(s).
  37. [37]
    [PDF] How Animacy and Verbal Information Influence V2 Sentence ...
    Jan 20, 2020 · Ways of measuring predictive processing include anticipatory eye movements to depicted referents while listening to speech (Visual World eye- ...
  38. [38]
    [PDF] Reassessing the historical evidence for embedded V2
    Broad embedded V2 (bEV2) languages: V2 occurs more broadly in embedded contexts. Typical examples: Icelandic and Yiddish. Terminologies differ, but something ...
  39. [39]
    Verb Second in Norwegian: Variation and acquisition
    This chapter provides an overview of the micro-variation in Norwegian when it comes to Verb Second (V2) word order, both in the various dialects and in the two ...
  40. [40]
    [PDF] Old English Verb-Second-ish in a Typology ... - University of Delaware
    Nov 9, 2016 · The manifestation of verb-second (V2) word order in Old English was very different from any other known V2 language. The peculiarities of ...Missing: scholarly | Show results with:scholarly
  41. [41]
    [PDF] The Middle English verb-second constraint: a case study in ...
    The CP-V2 languages allow verb-second order only in those embedded clauses that in some way have the structure of matrix clauses, either because the ...
  42. [42]
    (PDF) Rethinking the loss of V2 - ResearchGate
    PDF | More than twenty years of research has been devoted to the nature of Verb Second (V2) in early English and its loss in the transition from Middle.
  43. [43]
    [PDF] Investigating Anglo-Norman Influence on Late Middle English Syntax
    The discussion has shown that French influence on late ME syntax is plausible as a factor contributing to: (i) the loss of then as a distinctive trigger for ...
  44. [44]
    [PDF] The syntax of Scandinavian embedded V2 and non-V2 clauses
    When is embedded V2 possible? Any of the structures in (2) resulting in a V2 order are possible in declarative complements of verbs of saying (4 below; ...
  45. [45]
    The Syntax of Scandinavian Embedded V2 and Non-V2 Clauses
    This paper investigates the syntax of embedded V2 and non-V2 clauses in Scandinavian languages, focusing on the eventive structures of embedded complements ...
  46. [46]
    (PDF) Embedded V2 in Norwegian and Swedish - Academia.edu
    V2 order in embedded clauses is linked to the assertion status of the proposition rather than matrix verb properties. Discourse-oriented elements indicate ...
  47. [47]
    The force of V2 revisited - jstor
    ... V2 word order is speaker-anchored or matrix- ... speech act potentials primarily with root clauses, but importantly, he also notes that ... Scandinavian, embedded ...
  48. [48]
    On the distribution and illocution of V2 in Scandinavian that-clauses
    This paper investigates the distribution of embedded verb second in Faroese, Icelandic, Norwegian, and Swedish. Two conclusions can be drawn from the study.
  49. [49]
    Verb‐second in embedded clauses in Faroese - Wiley Online Library
    Jul 18, 2016 · There has been considerable controversy in the linguistic literature about the nature of Vfin-Adv (V2) order in subject-initial embedded ...
  50. [50]
    [PDF] Subjects, Expletives, and the EPP - MIT
    As Roberts and Roussou note in this volume, the appearance of expletives in. SpecCPin V2 languages like Icelandic and in SpecIPin non-null subject languages.
  51. [51]
    (PDF) Title: Pushing the limits of V2 -new syntactic options in a ...
    Jun 2, 2023 · Studies of urban dialects of Germanic languages show a development where the otherwise strict V2 syntax rules are supplemented with V3 syntax in ...
  52. [52]
    [PDF] On variation in Faroese verb placement•
    The grammatical phenomenon addressed in this paper concerns the position of the finite verb with respect to adverbs and negation in non-V2 contexts. We tested ...
  53. [53]
    Revisiting the configurationality issue in Old Icelandic | Glossa
    Dec 17, 2021 · Word order patterns characteristic of verb-second (V2) are robustly attested, e.g. (12), and Old Icelandic is standardly assumed to be a V2 ...<|separator|>
  54. [54]
    [PDF] Variable V2 in Norwegian Heritage Language - Munin
    V2 in Norwegian means the finite verb appears second, following non-subject constituents and preceding the subject in subject-initial declaratives.
  55. [55]
    (PDF) Word order in German - Academia.edu
    The finite verb must occupy the second position in main clauses, known as V2 positioning. Scrambling does not occur in German; constituents are grouped in a ...
  56. [56]
    (PDF) Embedded Verb Second in the history of German
    May 18, 2022 · This chapter is a corpus study investigating the presence and the distribution of asyndetic (complementizerless) V2 complement clauses in ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  57. [57]
    Drift and Word Order Change in West Germanic The Case of Afrikaans
    Sep 4, 2018 · Previous research (Shannon 1997, 2000, 2003) has revealed a major syntactic shift which had hitherto gone largely unnoticed in the ...
  58. [58]
    Verb second in Afrikaans : is this a unitary phenomenon?
    Jan 1, 2002 · The Verb Second (V2) phenomenon is a syntactic characteristic which features, to a greater or lesser extent, in all the Germanic languages.
  59. [59]
    (PDF) The Scope of Embedded V2 in modern Yiddish - ResearchGate
    Dec 27, 2017 · Yiddish poses certain challenges to leading ideas in the distribution of embedded verb second.
  60. [60]
    German V2 and the PF-Interface: Evidence from Dialects
    May 10, 2017 · This investigation focuses primarily on the left periphery of main clauses in Kiezdeutsch (KD) and Eastern Yiddish (EY), with brief reference to ...3. Chomsky's ( · 3.2. Evidence From Yiddish... · 5.1 Prosodic Remapping<|separator|>
  61. [61]
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2215039016300145
  62. [62]
    Low German with a Swedish twist - Contact-induced word order ...
    This paper deals with differences in word order between two sets of Low German letters from the 15th century: letters sent from Swedish cities and letters ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  63. [63]
    Fred Weerman, The V-2 conspiracy – a synchronic and diachronic ...
    The V-2 conspiracy presents a synchronic and diachronic analysis of verbal positions in Germanic languages through the lens of post-Barriers ...
  64. [64]
    Old French as a V2 Language - SpringerLink
    In Old French (OFr) the finite verb tends to be in second position of a main clause regardless of the nature of the initial constituent, much as in Modern ...
  65. [65]
    11 Evaluating the contact hypothesis for Old French word order
    This volume revisits the classic and oft-repeated claim that Old French shows a raft of 'Germanic' grammatical properties due to contact with Frankish in the ...
  66. [66]
    The nature of V2 in Old French: Evidence from subject inversion in ...
    Dec 26, 2017 · True Germanic-style embedded V2 does not appear until the late 12th century, and is only rarely used throughout the 13th century. Thus, OF ...
  67. [67]
    Occitan, verb second and the Medieval Romance word order debate ...
    I argue that it was a V2 system and in particular that the locus of the V2 property was a low left-peripheral head, namely Fin, yielding a descriptively ' ...
  68. [68]
    [PDF] ON THE LEFT PERIPHERY OF V2 LANGUAGES - LingBuzz
    Both Sicilian and Occitan also show evidence for a kind of Topic Continuity. V1 and Rhematic V1 which is not found in French, Spanish or Venetian. 4.3. Analysis.
  69. [69]
    [PDF] A CONSPIRACY THEORY FOR THE LOSS OF V2 IN ROMANCE∗
    A minimal comparison of Occitan and French is also instructive in evaluating a potential contact-based approach for V2 loss, given that both languages are.
  70. [70]
    [PDF] THE PARTIAL V2 SYSTEM OF CLASSICAL PORTUGUESE
    However, differently from a strict V2 grammar, Classical Portuguese also allows non-V2 linear word orders.
  71. [71]
    [PDF] The loss of verb-second in the history of Portuguese
    “It appears that the combination of pro-drop and V2 is intrinsically unstable and necessarily gives away to an SVO. (plus pro-drop) grammar.
  72. [72]
    [PDF] Reconstructing the rise of V2 in Welsh - University of Cambridge
    Middle Welsh exhibits verb-second (V2) word order, but both earlier and later stages of the Welsh language appear to be primarily verb-initial, rendering ...
  73. [73]
    18 Reconstructing the rise of Verb Second in Welsh - Oxford Academic
    Verb Second orders are only found in the Middle Welsh period: Old and Modern Welsh mainly exhibit verb-initial patterns. This chapter shows how the V2 orders ...
  74. [74]
    Verb-second in spoken and written Estonian | Glossa
    Feb 4, 2021 · Written Estonian is essentially a well-behaved strict V2 language, at least as far as affirmative declarative clauses are concerned: 95% of our ...
  75. [75]
    V2 word order - Wikipedia
    Most Germanic languages do not normally use V2 order in embedded clauses, with a few exceptions. In particular, German, Dutch, and Afrikaans revert to VF (verb ...Examples · Non-finite verbs and... · Variations · English
  76. [76]
    [PDF] AUXILIARY INITIAL ALTERNATION IN TOHONO O'ODHAM
    May 6, 2015 · Unlike in. Breton and other Germanic languages with this construction, verb second, or V2, is the default order in O'odham. Also, there is no ...
  77. [77]
    30 Verb Second in Wymysorys - Oxford Academic
    Jun 18, 2020 · This chapter discusses phenomena related to V2 word order in Wymysorys. It is argued that Wymysorys enables its speakers to operate between two ...
  78. [78]
    [PDF] Word order in subordinated clauses in the Surselva - Marc Meisezahl
    Consider the following example from German – a V2 lan- guage: (2) a. Die the. Rhätische. Rhaetian. Bahn. Railway betreibt operates den the. Bernina. Bernina.
  79. [79]
    [PDF] HPSG and Dependency Grammar - Richard ('Dick') Hudson
    here as '3sg.past') comes second (after one dependent word or phrase). Such ... following finite verb, so lives is the complement of who; moreover, it ...
  80. [80]
    [PDF] Word Order in German: A Formal Dependency Grammar Using a ...
    The aim of this article is to describe the word order of German verbs and their comple- ments. German word order is not free, but.
  81. [81]
    [PDF] A Formal Look at Dependency Grammars and Phrase-Structure ...
    dependency structure. However, in the analysis for embedded clauses we have given here, we adjoin the matrix clause into the dependent clause at its S node.
  82. [82]
    The Ergative Hypothesis and Free Word Order in Dutch and German
    Jan 31, 1985 · Semantic Scholar extracted view of "The Ergative Hypothesis and Free Word Order in Dutch and German" by H. D. Besten et al.Missing: 1983 | Show results with:1983
  83. [83]
    The Minimalist Program - MIT Press
    The Minimalist Program consists of four recent essays that attempt to situate linguistic theory in the broader cognitive sciences.Missing: PDF | Show results with:PDF
  84. [84]
    [PDF] the fine structure of the left periphery - UNG
    In this article, I would like to explore some aspects of the fine struc- ture of the left periphery. The first part (sections 2-6) is devoted to the.