Predictable and unpredictable sources of variable verb and adverb placement in Scandinavian

27 Pages·2010·0.84 MB·English

by  Höskuldur Thráinsson

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Lingua120(2010)1062–1088
www.elsevier.com/locate/lingua
Predictable and unpredictable sources of variable verb and
adverb placement in Scandinavian
Ho¨skuldur Thra´insson*
DepartmentofIcelandic,UniversityofIceland,IS-101Reykjav´ık,Iceland
Received15October2007;receivedinrevisedform22May2008;accepted7April2009
Availableonline18June2009
Abstract
RecentresearchhasshownthatthereismorevariationintheplacementofverbsandadverbsinScandinavianthanpreviously
thought. This paper argues that the theory of verb movement originally proposed by Bobaljik and Thra´insson [Bobaljik, J.D.,
Thra´insson,H.,1998.Twoheadsaren’talwaysbetterthanone.Syntax1,37–71]doesinfactpredictmuchoftheobservedvariation,
despite recent claims to the contrary. According to this theory, this variation is intimately related to morphological differences
betweenthelanguages(ordialects):Languageswithclearlyseparableagreementandtensemorphology(Icelandic,forinstance)
haveseparateagreementandtenseprojectionsandthismakesverbmovement(oftheV-to-Itype)obligatorybecauseofthenature
ofcheckingoperations.Thisdoesnotmean,however,thatV-to-Icanonlyoccurinlanguageswithrichverbalmorphology.The
theoryalsopredictsthatacertainkindofadverbialmodificationcantriggerV-to-I,butthishastypicallybeenoverlookedinthe
literature: If adverbs are specifiers of separate functional projections, then V-to-I is necessary, whereas it is not if adverbs are
adjuncts.ThismeansthatadverbialadjunctionmustbetheruleinScandinavianandadverbsinseparatefunctionalprojectionsan
exception(optionally availablefor somesentenceadverbsbutnot allinRegionalNorthernNorwegian, forinstance).
#2009PublishedbyElsevier B.V.
Keywords: Verbmovement;Functionalstructure;Checking;Adverbialmodification;Scandinavian
1. Introduction
The main purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that a formal theory of verb movement which makes fairly
conservativeassumptions about clausal architecture does in fact predict much of the recently observed variation in
verbplacementinScandinavian,whereaslessrestrictiveapproachestypicallyfailtomakesuchpredictions.1Inthe
* Tel.:[phone].
E-mailaddress:[email protected].
1Classicverbmovementaccountsobviouslydependontheassumptionthatheadmovementisapartofthetheoreticalarsenalavailable.Chomsky
hasargued(2001)thatheadmovementisnotcompatiblewithcertainrecentassumptionsaboutthenatureofsyntacticderivationandsubsequently
Mahajan (2003), Mu¨ller (2004), Koopman and Szabolcsi (2000) and others haveshown that it is possible to derivecertain ‘‘verb movement
structures"byassumingsomesortofremnantmovementinstead(seealsoBentzenetal.,2007a,b).Althoughremnantmovementaccountstendto
become quite complex and their predictions less than obvious at times, I do not want to maintain that they should be ruled out in general.
Nevertheless,thepresentpapercanbeseenasademonstrationofwhatafairlystraightforwardheadmovementaccountcanaccomplish.Ifhead
movementisruledoutontheoreticalgrounds,thenonewillsimplyhavetohopethatthepositiveresultsofthepresentaccountcanalsobeobtained
byaccountsthatruleoutheadmovement.Ifnot,thentheotherobviousalternativeisthatatheoryrulingoutheadmovementisonthewrongtrack.
0024-3841/$–seefrontmatter#2009PublishedbyElsevierB.V.
doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2009.04.003
H.Thra´insson/Lingua120(2010)1062–1088 1063
process I shall show that the orders Vfin-Adv (finite verb preceding a sentence adverb) and Adv-Vfin can arise in
different ways in Scandinavian and they will have different properties depending on the derivation and resulting
structure.Inparticular,theorderAdv-Vfindoesnotnecessarilymeanthatthefiniteverbhasremainedinsitu,asoften
erroneously assumed in the discussion of such orders in Icelandic, for instance.
The structure of this paper is as follows. After a brief review of the basic facts I shall review the theory of verb
movementproposedbyBobaljikandThra´insson(1998,henceforthB&T)anddrawattentiontocertainpropertiesofthis
theorythathavetypicallygoneunnoticed.Iwillthenshowthatthesepropertiesdoinfactpredictmoretypesofvariation
inverb placementthan usually assumed. I shall discusstowhat extent thesetypescanbe distinguished, both by the
linguist analyzing a particular language and the child acquiring it. I shall then argue that certain basic properties of
variableverbplacementinScandinavianareinfactpredictedbyB&T’stheory.ButIshallalsomaintainthatcertain
aspects of the observed variation are not predicted under any present theory, in particular apparent cross-linguistic
differencesinadverbialmodificationandadverbplacement,andhenceIshallarguethatmoreresearchisneededonthis
topic.
Tosetthestageforthe followingdiscussion, themain predictionsandclaimsoftheanalysisadvocatedhereare
listed in (1):
(1) a. Verb movement of the V-to-I type is obligatory in languages2 that have a split agreement and tense
morphology.ThisfollowsfromB&T’stheoryofverbmovement.InsuchlanguagesV-to-Iwillapplyacrossall
sentenceadverbs,i.e.medialadverbslike‘never’,‘always’,‘not’,etc.HencetheorderVfin-Advwillbethe
defaultorderinallembeddedclausesinsuchlanguages,regardlessofthetypeofsentenceadverbinvolved.3
b. ApparentexceptionstoV-to-Iinlanguageswithrichverbalmorphologyoftheappropriatekindarejustthat,
apparent.Theappearanceistheresultofexceptionaladverbplacementabovethefiniteverb.Itfollowsfrom
thisthattheAdv-Vfinorderwillnotbethedefaultorderinlanguagesofthiskindbutonlyacceptableunder
special circumstances, depending on the type of adverb and the type of embedded clause involved.
c. V-to-Iisnotonlytriggeredbyrichverbalmorphology(moreprecisely,bya‘‘splitIP’’underB&T’stheory).
Itcanalsobetriggeredbyaspecialtypeofadverbialmodificationwhichmakesverbmovementnecessary
inlanguageswith‘‘poorverbalmorphology’’.Althoughthishastypicallybeenoverlooked,italsofollows
B&T’s theory of verb movement.
d. Finally, the Vfin-Advorder can also result from aV-to-C-type movementinembedded clauses thathave
main-clause properties(e.g. bridgeverbcomplements, certain typesofadverbialclauses,etc.), asis well
knownandextensivelyreviewedbyVikner(1995a)andRohrbacher(1999),forinstance.Sincemain-clause
propertiesarenottypicalpropertiesofembeddedclauses,itfollowsthataVfin-AdvorderresultingfromV-
to-Cwillbeexceptionalinembeddedclausesinalllanguages(paceBentzenetal.,2007a,b,forinstance).
Sincesomeofthepredictionsandclaimsin(1)mayseemunexpectedorcontroversial,thereadershouldnowbe
very excited to read the following discussion and argumentation.
2. The basic facts and some background assumptions
2.1. The standard analysis of verb placement variation in Scandinavian
Examples like the following have standardly been taken to show that there is V-to-I movement in Icelandic:
2 Notethatthewordlanguagecan,ofcourse,mean‘dialect’inthiscontext—andelsewhereinthispaper.
3 Wordorderdifferencesbetweenmainclausesandembeddedclauseswillbediscussedbelow,aswillthespecialpropertiesofcertainnon-finite
clauses.Iamlimitingthediscussiontofiniteembeddedclausesforthemomentinordertosimplifythepresentation.
1064 H.Thra´insson/Lingua120(2010)1062–1088
In(2a)thenon-finitemainverbsy´nt‘shown’followsthesententialnegationekki‘not’andisthusarguablyinsitu
insidetheVP.4In(2b)themainverbisfiniteandprecedesthenegationandbecausetheembeddedclauseisofthekind
thatisknownnottohavemain-clauselikeproperties,i.e.arelativeclause,ithasstandardlybeenassumedthatthis
movementistotheI-position(ortosomeI-position,ifoneassumesasplitIPasoriginallysuggestedbyPollock,1989)
ratherthantotheC-position(asitcouldbeinthecaseofembeddedclausesknowntohavemain-clauselikeproperties,
such as bridge verb complements). Conversely, facts of the following sort have been taken to show that V-to-I
movementdoesnotoccurinDanish,andcomparablefactsfromstandardNorwegianandSwedishhavebeenpresented
(forextensivereviewssee,e.g.Vikner,1995a,131ff.;Vikner,1995b;HolmbergandPlatzack,1995;Thra´insson,2007,
27ff., 58ff. and references cited there):
SothestandardbeliefhasbeenthatIcelandichasV-to-ImovementwhereasMainlandScandinavian(MSc)does
not.This,ofcourse,raisesthequestionwhatcouldbethereasonforthisvariationorwhatitcouldberelatedto.Thatis
obviouslyapartofamoregeneralproblem:Towhatextentcanlanguagesvaryandwhydothey?Beforewelookat
variable verb placement in more detail, it is useful to review some basic ideas about variation.
2.2. Sources of variation, cues and triggers
It is probably fair to say that much recent work on syntactic variation does not consider in any detail the basic
questionofwhatcouldbethesourceoftheobservedcross-linguisticorcross-dialectaldifferences.Ifwebelievethata
majorsourceofvariationisthedifferent‘‘choices’’thatchildrenmakeduringtheacquisitionperiod,thenonemust
thinkseriouslyaboutthequestionwhatcouldtriggerthesedifferentchoices.Someyearsago,Chomskyproposedthe
following answer to this question (1995, 169)—and I shall refer to this proposal as The Trigger Condition:
(4) Variation must be determined by what is ‘‘visible’’ to the child acquiring language, that is by the PLD
[Primary Linguistic Data].
WhatmayvaryisthenstandardlytakentobedeterminedbyUG.Onequestion,forinstance,iswhetherortowhat
extentthemake-upoffunctionalcategoriescanvaryfromonelanguageordialecttoanother.Whilesomelinguists
believethatthefunctionalskeletonofsentencesmustbeidenticalinalllanguagesanddialects,withvariationlimited
to the so-called ‘‘strength’’ of individual projections or heads, a somewhat different way of thinking about this is
outlined in The Limited Diversity Hypothesis proposed by Thra´insson (1996, 257):
(5) a. UG defines a set of possible functional projections.
b. The languages oftheworld‘‘select’’elements fromthis set, justlike theyselectfrom the set ofpossible
phonological features.
c. Hence it is not the case that all functional projections occur in all languages.
Thisobviouslyraisesthequestionhowchildrenacquiringaparticularlanguageknowwhichfunctionalprojections
occurinthelanguagetheyareacquiring.AccordingtoThra´insson(1996,261),childrenfollowTheRealMinimalist
Principle when trying to figure out which functional projections play a role in their language:
(6) Only assume the functional projections that you have evidence for.
IfoneassumestheTriggerConditiondescribedin(4),thismeans,then,thatvariationsinthefunctionalmake-upof
dialects and languages would be limited by what can be triggered during acquisition by visible differences.
4HereandelsewhereinthispaperIwilljustusethetraditionallabelVPratherthan,say,vP,asnothinginmyargumentationwilldependonthe
detailedstructureoftheVP-domain.
H.Thra´insson/Lingua120(2010)1062–1088 1065
Thisemphasisontheimportanceofvisibleevidenceduringtheacquisitionperiodcanbefoundinanumberofother
works. It can, for instance, be related to Lightfoot’s concept of cues, described, e.g. as follows by him (2006, 78):
(7) Acueisapieceofstructure,anelementofI-language,whichisderivedfromtheinput,butitisnotasentence
[...]. A sentence expresses a cue if the cue is unambiguously required for the analysis of the sentence.
AsLightfootpointsout,theconceptoftriggersisasimilarone,albeitnotalwaysdefinedinaformalfashion,and
herefersinthisconnectiontoJanetFodor’sconceptoftriggersaspiecesofstructureor‘‘treelets’’,whereatreeletis‘‘a
small piece of tree structure...that is made available by UG and is adopted into a learner’s grammar if it proves
essential for parsing input sentences’’ (Fodor, 1998, 6).
Wewillhavereasontocomebacktosomeoftheseideasaboutthenatureandpossibleextentofvariationinthe
followingsections,concentratingonvariationintherelativeplacementofverbsandadverbs.Butitshouldbepointed
out that the approach advocated here is very different from various popular ‘‘radical universalist’’ approaches to
syntactic structure which assume that all languages and dialects share the same basic clausal skeleton, e.g. the so-
called cartography approach initiated by Rizzi (1997, see also Rizzi, 2004, for instance).5
3. Relating verb placement variation to variation in functional structure
3.1. The relevance of ‘‘rich verbal morphology’’
Giventhisbackground,wecannowaskwhatitcouldmeanto‘‘haveevidencefor’’aparticularfunctionalprojection
(cf.(6)above).Theanswertothisquestionwillobviouslydependonone’sconceptoffunctionalprojectionsandtheir
nature,inparticulartheirrelationshiptotheinterfacesbetweensyntaxandothercomponentsofthegrammar.Butifone
takesmorphologyseriouslyandifonetakestheproposedlabelsoffunctionalprojectionslikeAgreementPhrase(AgrP)
andTensePhrase(TP)seriouslytoo,thenonemightthinkthatthereissomerelationshipbetweentheseprojectionsand
thestructureofverbalmorphology.ThisisthecentralideabehindThra´insson’sSplitIPParameter(SIP,cf.Thra´insson,
1996,262)6:
(8) Languages that have a positive value for the SIP have AgrSP and TP as separate functional projections.
Languages with a negative value of SIP are characterized by an unsplit (pre-Pollockian) IP.
Crucial evidence triggering the positive value of this parameter was supposed to be ‘‘independent tense and
agreement morphology’’ (Thra´insson, 1996, 269). No such trigger is available to the child acquiring standard
Mainland Scandinavian, e.g. Danish, whereas it should be quite obvious in the morphology of regular verbs in
Icelandic. This is illustrated below:
As shown here, Icelandic has a regular past tense marker (a dental obstruent, here represented by /ð/, which
alternateswith/d/and/t/asapasttensemarkerinIcelandic)easilyseparablefromtheagreementmarkers,whichvary
fromonepersonandnumbertoanother.InDanishthereisjustoneformforthepresenttenseandanotherforthepast
5 Asiswellknown,thecartographyapproachassumesaverycloserelationshipbetweensyntacticandsemanticstructure.Thusitassumes,for
instance, that categories like topic, focus, force, etc. project separate hierarchically ordered phrases in the ‘‘CP domain" and that SpecTopP,
SpecFocPandSpecForceParethendesignatedpositionsforelementshavingthesemantic/discourserolesoftopic,focusandforce,respectively.The
presentaccountismoreinlinewithapproachesthatassumethe‘‘autonomyofsyntax".Thisshouldbecomeclearbelow.
6 A similar idea about the relationship between morphology and functional structure had been proposed independently by Johnson in an
unpublishedpaper1990.
1066 H.Thra´insson/Lingua120(2010)1062–1088
tense. This, then, was taken as an argument for the claim that children acquiring Danish would develop a grammar
containingafusedIPofthesortillustratedin(10a)(unlesstheywereexposedtoothertypesofvisibletriggersforasplit
IP)whereaschildrenacquiringIcelandicwouldhaveevidenceforthemorecomplexfunctionalstructureof(10b)7:
One obvious difference between these structures is the fact that the Split IP structure of Icelandic makes two
potentialsubjectpositionsavailableinthe‘‘IP-domain’’(i.e.SpecAgrPandSpecTP)whilethereisonlyoneinMSc
(namelySpecIP).AspointedoutbyThra´insson(1996,273,passim;seealsoB&T,1998,52ff.),thiswouldprovidean
explanationfortheclaimmadebyJonasandBobaljik(1993)andBobaljikandJonas(1996)thatMScdoesnotseemto
haveSpecTP‘‘available’’asasubjectpositionwhereasIcelandicdoes.Wewillreturntothisissueinsection4.2below.
WhiletheSplitIPparameterwasnotoriginallysuggestedasawayofaccountingforvariationinverbplacement,
B&T(1998)showedthatgivenfairlystandardassumptionsaboutfeaturechecking,theSIPdidinfactmakeinteresting
and testable predictions about verbplacement variation and these predictions were borne out by the observed MSc
facts. The assumptions are as follows (B&T, 1998, 39):
(11) a. The features of a projection are those of its head.
b. Movement occurs solely for the purposes of feature checking.
c. Featuresarecheckedinallandonlylocalrelationstoahead(viz.,head-specifier,head-complement,
head-head(adjoinedheads)).
Giventheseassumptions,B&TpredicttheobserveddifferencesbetweenDanishandIcelandic.First,letusconsider
the reasons for the lack of V-to-I in standard MSc, as illustrated by an example from Danish above:
7Theideaisthatthisparameterisset‘‘onceandforall"foreachlanguageanddoesnot,say,dependonthemorphologicalmake-upofaparticular
verb in a given sentence. Thus clauses containing irregular verbs will have split IP although irregular verbs themselves do not provide any
morphologicalcuethatcouldhelpthechildsettheparameter.Similarly,nothingshouldruleouttheexistenceofasplitIPinanon-finiteclause,
althoughitisnotclearthatallnon-finiteclausescontainafullfunctionalstructure.Weshallreturntothisissueinsection5.1.
H.Thra´insson/Lingua120(2010)1062–1088 1067
(cid:2) VP contains all the inflectional features of læste ‘read’ (cf. (11a)).
(cid:2) VP is in the local domain of I (it is the complement of I).
(cid:2) Hence it is not necessary to move læste out of the VP to check the verbal features against I.
(cid:2) Hence there is no V-to-I in Danish (cf. (3) above, possibly for reasons of economy).
Note,however,thatitiscrucialforthisaccountofthelackofV-to-IinMScthatsentenceadverbslikethenegationare
adjoinedtoVPandarenotdominatedbya(functional)projectiondifferentfromVP.OtherwisetheverbinsidetheVP
wouldnotbeinthelocaldomainofI,sinceaprojectiondifferentfromVPwouldbeinterveningbetweenIandVP,and
hencetheverbwouldhavetomoveoutoftheVPtocheckitsfeaturesagainstI.Thispropertyoftheanalysiswillfigure
prominently in the discussion below, but it has gone relatively unnoticed in recent discussion of verb placement in
Scandinavian.
In Icelandic, on the other hand, the split IP forces the verb to move out of the VP as illustrated in (13):
(cid:2) VP contains all the inflectional features of læsi ‘read’.
(cid:2) VP is not in the local domain of Agr (it is not the complement of Agr, TP is).
(cid:2) Hence læsi has to move out of the VP to make feature checking against Agr possible.
(cid:2) Thus we have V-to-I (more specifically, V-to-T) in Icelandic in all types of embedded clauses (cf. (2) above).8
ItisimportanttonoteinthisconnectionthattherelationshipoftheB&TaccountofV-to-Itotheso-calledRich
MorphologyHypothesis(RMH)isratherindirect.TheB&Ttheorydoesnot,asmostvariantsoftheRMH,relyonthe
(typicallycircular)notionof‘‘strongfeatures’’noronsomeadhocwayofdefiningthenotionof‘‘richmorphology’’in
termsofthenumberofmorphologicaldistinctionsintheverbalparadigm.ThemorphologicalaspectofB&T’stheory
simplysaysthatiftheverbalmorphologyhas‘‘split’’tenseandagreementmorphemes,thenthatconstitutesevidence
forsplittenseandagreementprojectionsinthefunctionalstructure,i.e.triggeringevidence,oracue,fortheSIP.The
splitIPinturnforcestheverbtomoveoutoftheVPifithastocheckfeaturesagainstAgrSbecauseotherwisetheverb
willnotbeinthelocaldomainofAgrS,whichisnecessaryforfeaturecheckingtotakeplace.Thusitisthenumberand
natureoffunctionalprojectionsthatforcestheverbmovement,notfeaturestrengthsomehowrelatedtomorphological
richness. The clear separation of tense and agreement morphemes is the only relevant notion of morphological
8 NotethatthistheoryimpliesthattheverbneednotmoveallthewaytoAgrtocheckAgr-features.Asweshallseeinsection4.5,thismakes
interestingpredictionsaboutpossiblevariationinIcelandicwordorder(seealsoB&T,1998,62ff.;Thra´insson,2003,181ff.)—itshouldbenoted
here,however,thatB&TassumedthataninterveningAgrO-projectionplayedaroleinverbmovementinIcelandic(see,e.g.B&T,1998,63),butas
showninthepresentarticle,thisisnotanecessaryassumption.
1068 H.Thra´insson/Lingua120(2010)1062–1088
‘‘richness’’forB&T’stheoryoffunctional projectionsandthe reason isthat itis thisseparationthatfunctionsasa
trigger for a positive setting of the SIP.9
3.2. Other structural sources of verb movement out of the VP
Asshownabove,themostimportantpropertyofB&T’stheoryisitsclaimthatverbmovementismovementofthe
verbintothelocaldomainoftheheadthatitneedstocheckfeaturesagainst.ThustheverbneedstomoveoutoftheVP
in a language with a split IP if it needs to check features against Agr. This is the source of ‘‘V-to-I’’ in Icelandic,
according to B&T. But contrary to common assumptions, B&T do not maintain that ‘‘V-to-I’’ can only occur in
languageswithasplitIP.Theyjustsaythatitwillnotoccurunlessafunctionalheadintervenesbetweentherelevant
I-headandtheV.InlanguageswithasplitIPthis‘‘intervening’’functionalheadwillbetheT-headoftheTPandhence
theVwillhavetomoveoutoftheVPifitneedstocheckfeaturesagainstAgr(seetheillustrationin(13)above).Butin
a language with an unsplit (or fused) IP the V would have to move out of the VP if some other functional head
intervenedandtheVhadtocheckfeaturesagainsttheI.Thisisillustratedin(14),whereFPisthe(fornowarbitrary)
functional projection headed by the functional head F (see also B&T, 1998, 42):
Inastructurelikethis,theVcouldnotcheckfeaturesagainstIwithoutmovingoutoftheVPsinceotherwiseit
wouldnotbeinthelocaldomainofI.Asweshallseebelow,thereissomeevidencethatthiskindofV-movementis
found in Scandinavian dialects that would be expected to have an unsplit (or fused) IP.
Similarly,B&T’stheoryalsopredictsthatiftheVhasfeaturestocheckagainstC,itwillhavetomoveoutoftheVP
in languages with an unsplit IP because otherwise it would not be in the local domain of C. This is shown in (15):
Whilethismayseemtrivialatthemoment,weshallseebelowthatsomeveryrobustandinterestingevidencefor
this prediction can be found in the Scandinavian languages.
9Thisobviouslyraisesthequestionofwhetherornototherkindsof‘‘separated’’inflectionalverbalmorphologymightconstituteevidenceforasplit
IPandhence‘‘force’’V-movementunderB&T’stheory.Thepredictionwouldbethatifmorphologicalcategoriesofthiskindaremirroredbyfunctional
projectionsabovetheVPinsyntacticstructure,thenthatshouldtriggerV-movement.AspointedoutbyAlexiadouandFanselow(2002,230),Greek
tenseandaspectmorphologymightbesuchacase:Greekhasseparatetenseandaspectmorphemesanditarguablyhasverbmovementoftherelevant
kindtoo.
H.Thra´insson/Lingua120(2010)1062–1088 1069
4. Some relatively well known facts supporting B&T’s theory
4.1. Historical evidence for the relevance of split tense and agreement morphology
The diachronic development of the Scandinavian languages is consistent with the claim that split tense and
agreementmorphologyisanimportanttriggerforapositivesettingoftheSIP:OldNorseandtheoldScandinavian
languagesallhadsimilartenseandagreementmorphologyasModernIcelandicandtheyallseemtohavehadV-to-Iof
theIcelandickind(e.g.movementacrossnegationinallsortsofembeddedclauses,cf.Platzack,1988a,b;Falk,1993;
Vikner,1995a;Rohrbacher,1999;Thra´insson,2003;Thra´inssonetal.,2004,etc.).Somerelevantexamplesaregiven
below:
ThestandardclaimisthatinthedevelopmentoftheScandinavianlanguagessimplificationofverbalmorphology
typicallyprecedeslossofV-to-Ibyapproximately200years(seeespeciallythediscussioninPlatzack,1988a,b;Falk,
1993; Vikner, 1995a, 132ff.) whereas Icelandic has kept its split agreement and tense morphology and verb
movement. These historical facts constituted an important part of the original arguments linking ‘‘rich verbal
morphology’’andV-to-IinScandinavian,probablyfirstinKosmeijer’swork(1986).Althoughthisworktypically
operatedwiththenotionof‘‘stronginflection’’relatedsomehowtorichverbalmorphology,thefactsareactually
consistentwithB&T’sclaimthatwhatmattersisthepresencevs.absenceofsplittenseandagreementmorphology
andnotsomesortofcountingofinflectionaldistinctions.Forreasonsofspace,thereaderisreferredtothesources
listed above for relevant paradigms.
4.2. The numberof available subject positions
As pointed out in the discussion below (10) above, the split IP structure makes more potential subject positions
available than the unsplit one. Interestingly, there is some evidence that Icelandic does in fact have more subject
positions available than MSc (see, e.g. Vangsnes, 1995, 1999, 2002a; Bobaljik and Jonas, 1996; Thra´insson, 1996,
2003, 2007; B&T, 1998; Bobaljik, 2002). First, observe the expletive constructions in (17) (based on examples in
Vangsnes, 1995, for instance):
1070 H.Thra´insson/Lingua120(2010)1062–1088
Ithasbeenclaimed(see,e.g.BobaljikandJonas,1996;Thra´insson,1996;B&T,1998;Thra´insson,1996,2007,etc.)
that facts of this sort show that there are two ‘‘subject positions’’ above the VP in Icelandic, namely SpecAgrP and
SpecTP.Thefirstonecanbefilledbytheexpletiveelementþað,theotherbytheassociateoftheexpletive(thelogical
subject),cf.(17a).Ifthemainverbofanexpletiveconstructionisintransitive,thentheobjectpositionintheVPisalso
availablefortheassociateoftheexpletive,cf.(17b).InalanguagewithanunsplitIPontheotherhand,likeNorwegian,
thereisonlyonesubjectpositionavailableabovetheVP,i.e.SpecIP.Hence(17c)isimpossiblebut(17d)isacceptable,
wheretheassociateoftheexpletiveispresumablyinsomesortofanobjectposition,whichisavailabletoitsincetheverb
isanintransitiveone.
Second,thisapproachalso(correctly)predictsthattransitiveexpletivesshouldbepossibleinSplitIP-languageslike
IcelandicbutnotinlanguageswithafusedIP,likeMSc,forinstance,sincewithatransitiveverbtheobjectposition
willnotbeavailablefortheassociateoftheexpletive.Thispredictionisborneoutbyexamplesliketheonesin(18),for
instance (based on Vikner, 1995a, 189):
ThusB&T’stheorymakesaninterestingandtestablepredictionabouttherelationshipbetweenverbmovementand
availablesubjectpositionsinexpletiveconstructions—andthereissomeevidencethatthispredictioniscorrect(fora
relateddiscussionoftheavailabilityofdifferentsubjectpositionsseeAlexiadouandAnagnostopoulou,1998;fora
different account of the availability of transitive expletives see, e.g. Richards, 2006). We shall return to this issue
below.10
4.3. Acquisition of V-to-C and inflection
If main clauses in Germanic V2 languages are characterized by the need of the (finite) verb to check some
features against C, then B&T’s theory predicts that the verb should only move out of the VP to check these
features if some functional projection intervenes between CP and VP, as explained above. In the adult language
there is presumably always such a projection, namely some sort of an IP. Hence B&T do not predict any cross-
linguistic variation with respect to this. But if the acquisition of IP is somehow conditioned by, or correlated
with, the acquisition of verbal inflection, then B&T’s theory predicts that there should be a connection
between the acquisition of verb movement in main clauses (the so-called V-to-C) and the acquisition of verbal
morphology.
Althoughtherelevantfactshavebeenknownforalongtime,theyarerarelyifevermentionedinthisconnection.
Yet it was pointed out by Platzack manyyears ago (1990, 1992) that there is no evidence for V-to-C in early child
Swedishuntilthereisevidenceforinflection.HeinterpretedthisasshowingthatearlychildSwedishhasnoIPandhe
gave examples like the following to illustrate this connection11:
10B&T(1998)alsoarguethattheavailabilityofObjectShiftoftheIcelandickindshouldberestrictedtolanguageswithSplitIP,assumingthat
ObjectShiftismovementtothespecifierpositionofanobjectagreementprojection(AgrOP)andthattherecannotbeanobjectagreementprojection
unlessthereisasubjectagreementprojection.Whilethereisanintriguingcorrelationhere,IhavedecidedtoleaveObjectShiftoutofthediscussion,
mainlybecauseitistoocomplexandcontroversial(foranextensiveoverviewoftheissuesseeThra´insson,2001a)—notealsothatitmayverywell
bethatsplitIPisanecessarybutnotasufficientconditionfortransitiveexpletives.EvidencecitedbyAlexiadouandFanselow(2002,229–230)
suggeststhatthismaybethecase.ThusFrenchandItalian,forinstance,appeartohaverichverbalmorphologyoftherelevantkind,buttheydonot
havetransitiveexpletives(norobjectshift)—andthesamemaybetrueofGreek(cf.fn.9above).
11Thenatureofclausestructureinearlychildlanguagewashotlydebatedinthe1990sandthecontributionstoMeisel(ed.1992a,b)giveagood
ideaoftheissuesinvolved,especiallytheusefulsummaryinMeisel’sintroductiontothevolume(Meisel,1992a,b).Theideathatearlyclausesin
childlanguagehavenofunctionalcategorieswasfirstmadefamousbyRadford(1986)andhearguesforasimilarpositioninhiscontributiontothe
Meisel-volume(Radford,1992,seealsoRadford,1990).Othercontributorstothatvolumearguingforatleastsome‘‘functionaldeficiency’’of
clausesinearlychildlanguagesincludePlatzack(1992),MeiselandMu¨ller(1992),andClahsenandPenke(1992),whereasHyams(1992),for
instance,takesadifferentview.Thereisneitherroomnorreasontogointothiscontroversyhere.
H.Thra´insson/Lingua120(2010)1062–1088 1071
Similarly, as Sigrjo´nsdo´ttir has discussed in a number of publications (1999, 2005a, 644, 2005b), so-called root
infinitivesoccurinIcelandicchildlanguageandheretoothereisanextremelyclearconnectionbetween(apparent)
verb movement and finiteness. Some examples are given in (20) and (21):
Asshownhere,thisdataisfromtheperiodwhenthetwogirlsEvaandBirnaareintheprocessofacquiringverbal
inflection.Hencetheysometimesusefiniteformsandsometimestheydonot,butthepositioningoftheverbisvirtually
always appropriate for the finite verb. This is shown in the overview in (22):
It is important to note here that it does not matter for B&T’s theory in this connection whether the children are
acquiringasplitIPorafusedone.IneithercasetheypredictthattheverbshouldhavetomoveoutoftheVPifithasto
checkfeaturesagainstCbecausetheVPwillnotbeinthelocaldomainofC.UnderB&T’saccount,thismovementhas
nothingtodowith‘‘strength’’oftheinflectionalfeaturesnorthestructuralmake-upoftheIPnorwiththenatureofthe
sentenceadverbs.AllthatmattersisthefactthattheinterveningIPwillpreventtheVPfrombeinginthelocaldomain
ofCandhenceforcetheverbtomoveoutofitifithastocheckfeaturesagainstC.Theso-calledRegionalNorthern
Norwegian(ReNN)isaninterestingtestcaseinthisconnection.Inthisdialectthefiniteverbnevermovesacrossthe
negationinembeddedclausesalthoughitmaymoveacrossotherkindsofadverbsaswillbediscussedinmoredetail
below.Thisisillustratedin(23)(see,e.g.Hro´arsdo´ttiretal.,2006,6passim;Bentzenetal.,2007a;Hrafnbjargarson
et al., 2007):