Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistic Variation
Vol. 23:2 (2023) ► pp.343–378

VO or OV

V to v or not to v

| Meertens Institute
This article sketches a new analysis of the diachronic development found in many West Germanic languages from a hybrid VO-OV order to a rigid OV or VO order. The discussion departs from the discussions in Struik & Van Kemenade (2020/2022) and Struik & Schoenmakers (to appear) on the diachronic development of English/Dutch, which focus on the role of object shift and information structure. My interpretation of their data will be based on an earlier analysis of the Germanic OV and VO languages in Broekhuis (2008: § 2.4; 2011). The main conclusions are the following. First, the change from the historical hybrid VO-OV systems to the rigid OV and VO systems of the present-day languages is due to changing the “setting” [±V‑to‑v] to the more categorical ones [−V-to-v] or [+V-to-v]. Second, the role of object shift in the diachronic development is modest; it is not involved in the development of the OV-languages at all and involves only the (partial) loss of object shift in the VO-languages (contra Struik et al.). Third, the encoding of the information-structural new-given distinction remains constant in that the interpretation of (un)scrambled nominal objects does not change over time (contra Struik & Schoenmakers).
Keywords: language change, Old/Middle English, Middle Dutch, VO-OV order, information structure, object shift, verb movement
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background assumptions of the two competing analyses
  • 3.The codification of new/given objects in the history of Germanic
    • 3.1The derivation-and-evaluation framework
    • 3.2Information structure: Leftward object shift without V-to-v
    • 3.3Information structure: Leftward object shift plus V-to-v
    • 3.4Conclusion
  • 4.The VO-OV alternation in (historical) West Germanic
    • 4.1Competing grammars in the D&E framework
    • 4.2Degrees of VO/OV-ishness
    • 4.3Transition from the hybrid to a rigid VO/OV systems
    • 4.4Conclusion
  • 5.The placement of new definite objects in OV languages
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 28 November 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.22005.bro
References (51)
References
Archangeli, Diana & Terence Langendoen. 1997. Optimality Theory. An overview. Malden/Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa, Gleanda Newton & Michelle Sheehan. 2009. The Final-over-Final constraint and predictions for diachronic change. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 31, [URL]
Broekhuis, Hans. 2000. Against feature strength. The case of Scandinavian object shift. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 181: 673–721. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Derivations and evaluations: object shift in the Germanic languages. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. A typology of clause structure. In Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2010, eds. Jeroen van Craenenbroeck and Johan Rooryck, 1–31. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. Object shift and object scrambling. In The Cambridge handbook of Germanic linguistics, eds. Michael T. Putnam and B. Richard Page, 413–432. Cambridge (UK)/New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. to appear a. Object shift and object scrambling in Germanic. In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Germanic Linguistics, eds. Jarich Hoekstra, Steffen Höder, Oliver Schallert and Freek Van de Velde. Oxford: Oxford University Press. lingbuzz.net/lingbuzz/006444. DOI logo
. to appear b. Scrambling of definite object NPs in Dutch. Nederlandse Taalkunde/Dutch Linguistics. lingbuzz.net/lingbuzz/005818. DOI logo
Broekhuis, Hans & Norbert Corver. 2016. Syntax of Dutch. Verbs and verb phrases, volume 3. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans & Joost Dekkers. 2000. The minimalist program and optimality theory: derivations and evaluations. In Optimality Theory: phonology, syntax and acquisition, eds. Joost Dekkers, Frank van der Leeuw and Jeroen van de Weijer, 386–422. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans & Ralf Vogel (eds). 2013. Linguistic derivations and filtering. Minimalism and optimality theory. Sheffield (UK)/Bristol (USA): Equinox.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans & Ellen Woolford. 2013. Minimalism and optimality theory. In The Cambridge handbook of generative syntax, ed. Marcel Den Dikken, 122–161: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burridge, Kate. 1993. Syntactic change in Germanic. Aspects of language change in Germanic with particular reference to Middle Dutch. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale. A life in Language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christensen, Ken Ramshøj. 2005. Interfaces. Negation – syntax – brain, University of Aarhus: PhD thesis.
Cloutier, Robert A. 2008. West Germanic OV and VO. The status of exceptions, University of Amsterdam: PhD thesis.
Costa, João. 1998. Word order variation. A constraint-based approach, University of Leiden: PhD thesis.
Dekkers, Joost, Frank Van der Leeuw & Jeroen Van de Weijer (eds). 2000. Optimality theory: phonology, syntax and acquisition Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1997. Yiddish VP order and the typology of object movement in Germanic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 171: 369–427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diesing, Molly & Eloise Jelinek. 1995. Distiributing arguments. Natural Language Semantics 31: 123–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Emonds, Joseph. 1978. The verbal complex V′–V in French. Linguistic Inquiry 91: 49–77.Google Scholar
Francis, Elaine J. 2022. Gradient acceptability and linguistic theory. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1997. Projection, heads and optimality. Linguistic Inquiry 281: 373–422.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 2020. A null theory of scrambling. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 391: 375–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 1986. Word order and syntactic features in the Scandinavian languages and English, University of Stockholm: PhD thesis.
Johnson, Kyle. 1991. Object positions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 91: 577–636. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1998. Overt vs. covert movement. Syntax 11: 128–191. [Also published as chapter 13 in Parameters and universals. Oxford University Press (2000)].Google Scholar
Koeneman, Olaf. 2006. Shape conservation, Holmberg’s generalization and predication. In Comparatieve studies in Germanic syntax, eds. Jutta M. Hartmann and László Molnárfi. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Komen, Erwin. 2013. Finding focus: a study of the historical development of focus in English, Radboud Universiteit: PhD thesis.
Lasnik, Howard. 1999. Minimalist analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Legendre, Géraldine, Michael T. Putnam, Henriëtte De Swart & Zaroukian (eds). 2016. Optimality-theoretic syntax, semantics, and pragmatics: From uni- to bidirectional optimization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lestrade, Sander, Geertje Van Bergen & Peter De Swart. 2016. On the origin of constraints. In Optimality-theoretic syntax, semantics and pragmatics. From uni- to bidirectional optimization, 179–199. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, Gereon & Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds). 2001. Competition in Syntax. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pintzuk, Susan. 1999. Phrase structures in competition: Variation and change in Old English word order. New York: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 201: 365–424.Google Scholar
Putnam, Michael T. 2007. Scrambling and the Survive Principle. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schoenmakers, Gert-Jan. 2022. Definite objects in the wild: a converging evidence approach to scrambling in the Dutch middle-field, Radboud University Nijmegen: PhD thesis.
Sells, Peter. 2001. Structure, alignment and optimality in Swedish. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Struckmeier, Volker. 2017. Against information structure heads: a relational analysis of German scrambling. Glossa 21: 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Struik, Tara. 2022. Information structure triggers for word order varation and change: The OV/VO alternation in the West Germanic languages, Radboud University Nijmegen: PhD thesis.
Struik, Tara & Gert-Jan Schoenmakers. to appear. When information structure exploits syntax: the relation between the loss of VO and scrambling in Dutch. Journal of Linguistics. DOI logo
Struik, Tara & Ans Van Kemenade. 2020. On the givenness of OV word order: A (re)examination of OV/VO variation in Old English. English Language and Linguistics 241: 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Struik, Tara & Ans van Kemenade. 2022. Information structure and OV word order in Old and Middle English: a phase-based approach. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 251: 79–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Ann & Susan Pintzuk. 2011. The interaction of syntactic change and information status effects in the change from OV to VO in English Catalan Journal of Linguistics 101: 71–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Rethinking the OV/VO alternation in Old English: The effect of complexity, grammatical weight, and information status. In The Oxford Handbook of the History of English, eds. Terttu Nevalainen and Elizabeth Closs Traugott, 835–845. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 2007. The syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Kemenade, Ans. 1987. Syntactic case and morphological case in the history of English. Dorderecht/Providence: Foris Publication. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, Arie. 1986. Linguistic theory and the function of word order in Dutch. A study on interpretive aspects of the order of adverbials and noun phrases. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar