RETHINKING VERB SECOND: ASSESSING THE THEORY AND THE DATA

Organisers:

Theresa Biberauer, Rethinking Comparative Syntax Project, University of Cambridge (mtb23@cam.ac.uk)

Sam Wolfe, Rethinking Comparative Syntax Project, University of Cambridge (sw493@cam.ac.uk)

Invited Speakers:

Zeljko Bošković (University of Conneticut)

Phil Branigan (Memorial University)

Liliane Haegeman (University of Ghent)

Anders Holmberg (University of Newcastle/University of Cambridge) 

Ana Maria Martins (University of Lisbon)

Cecilia Poletto (University of Frankfurt)

George Walkden (University of Manchester)

Fred Weerman (University of Amsterdam)

Date and Venue: 

22-24 March 2016, Old Divinity School, St John’s College, University of Cambridge.

Theme of the Workshop:

In terms of the Principles and Parameters conception of Universal Grammar (UG), initiated in the late 1970s, human languages are reflections of an innately specified grammatical template, shaped by invariant principles and variation-admitting parameters. This view led, particularly during the pre-Minimalist Government & Binding era, to the postulation of a large number of parameters, covering many different empirical phenomena (cf. i.a. Newmeyer 2004, 2005, Kayne 2005, Biberauer 2008, Haspelmath 2008, Roberts & Holmberg 2010, Bošković 2013, Picallo 2014 for discussion). Certain parameters played a particularly prominent role in the parametric discussion, with the Null Subject Parameter, the Head Parameter, and the V2 Parameter being three very clear cases in point. Two previous Cambridge and Newcastle joint projects – the AHRC-funded Null Subjects and Parametric Theory (2002-2007) and Structure and Linearization in Disharmonic Word Orders (2007-2001) projects – have conducted what might be thought of as a “stock-take” of what generative research has shown about the feasibility of approaching, respectively, null-argument and word-order phenomena in terms of the classic Null Subject and Head Parameters (see in particular Holmberg 2005, 2009, and the contributions in Biberauer, Holmberg, Roberts & Sheehan 2010 on the former, and Biberauer & Sheehan 2011, Sheehan 2013, Biberauer & Sheehan 2013, Biberauer & Roberts 2013, Biberauer, Holmberg & Roberts 2014, and Biberauer, Holmberg, Roberts & Sheehan forthcoming on the latter). The purpose of the current workshop is to initiate a parallel discussion in respect of the Verb Second (V2) Parameter, by bringing together researchers working in different theoretical frameworks and working on different varieties. More specifically, we hope to probe empirical and theoretical matters like the following:

• -  The crosslinguistic attestation of (full and partial) V2 systems, and also of superficial/apparent V2 systems: In how many different language families is (some measure of) V2 genuinely attested (see Holmberg 2015 for some discussion)? How does data from lesser-studied varieties affect potential formal characterisations of the phenomenon?

• -  The formal nature of the V2 phenomenon: What formal properties define a V2 system, distinguishing it from non-V2 systems? What insights can different theoretical frameworks (Core Functional Category-oriented minimalism, cartography, nanosyntax, optimality theory, etc.) shed on the phenomenon? What insights can V2 phenomena shed on current theoretical debates (e.g. about the structure of the left periphery, the nature and targets of verb-movement, the interpretation of V2 vs non-V2 structures in the same system, etc.)? Is it useful to think of V2 in parametric terms? Is V2 a(n in part) “deep” (i.e. Narrow Syntax-internal) or exclusively “shallow” (i.e. PF-based) phenomenon, or do V2 systems differ in this respect, with some being “shallower” than others? Can psycholinguistic studies shed light on the nature of V2? What formal properties do V2 systems share with non-V2 systems (e.g. V1 languages; cf. Willis 1998, Roberts 2004, Jouitteau 2010)? In what respects, if any, do V2 systems share properties with X2 systems of other kinds, e.g. Warlpiri, with its auxiliary clitic-movement to the highest clausal functional head (Legate 2008)?

• -  The typology of V2: What sub-types of V2 systems can we identify (cf. Vikner 1995 for a well-known classification)? How similar are main- and embedded-clause V2? What role does the attestation of V1 and V3 orders have in defining a typology of the phenomenon, and is a characterisation of ‘strict’ vs. ‘relaxed’ V2 languages useful in this connection (cf. Cognola 2015)?

• -  The acquisition of V2: How is V2 acquired? Is there room for an innately given V2 Parameter of some kind? If so, how do we account for its interaction with other innately given parameters, so that it doesn’t mislead acquirers acquiring non-V2 languages (cf. Wexler 2015)? In the context of the current minimalist take on Universal Grammar, which typically eschews innately specified parameters, viewing them instead as emergent (cf. the work of the Cambridge-base Rethinking Comparative Syntax group [http://recos-dtal.mml.cam.ac.uk]) or as spurious/non-existent (cf. i.a. Boeckx 2014), what role does innately specified information play (cf. Chomsky’s (2005) Factor 1)? And which aspects of the input are crucial (cf. Chomsky’s Factor 2)? And might there be a role for more general cognitive biases (cf. Chomsky’s Factor 3)? Do cue-based models of acquisition aide our understanding of acquisitional ‘pathways’ as regards V2 (cf. Lightfoot & Westergaard 2007 and Westergaard 2009)? What V2-related “over-“ and “undershoots” do children produce (cf. i.a. Schoenenberger 2000)?

• -  V2 variation and change: How consistently V2 are the oldest forms of languages that have been V2 for most of/throughout their attested history (cf. Walkden 2014)? How can data from new diachronic studies inform a typology of V2 phenomena (cf. Wolfe 2015)? How stable is V2 more generally and which language-internal and external factors contribute towards its preservation or loss? (see Meklenborg-Salvesen’s Traces of History project [http://www.hf.uio.no/ilos/english/research/projects/traces-of-history/ index.html] Precisely which non-V2 orders are permitted in V2 systems (cf. Kaiser 2002 and Poletto 2014 for opposing views, and also Holmberg 2015)? Under what circumstances do new V2 patterns arise? What patterns of optionality do V2 structures feature in (cf. Henry 1995, McCloskey 2006 and Biberauer 2003, 2015 on embedded interrogatives in Hiberno-English and Afrikaans respectively)? How does adult V2-related optionality compare with child-language V2-related optionality?

• -  V2 and contact: What role does contact play in the V2 context? Contact with SVO languages has been said to lead to the loss of V2, but there are also contact situations where the amount of V2 increases, e.g. the Hiberno-English and Afrikaans contexts. What are the properties of natively spoken contact V2 varieties, including understudied varieties like the modern spoken varieties of Yiddish and Vilamovicean (cf. Andrason 2013), Rhaeto-Romance varieties (cf. Poletto 2002) and Brazilian Pomeranian (Postma 2014)? What does V2 in Heritage Languages look like (cf. i.a. Franke 2008 on so-called Springbok German)? How is this similar and different to what we see in L2 German (cf. Wiese 2009)? In the latter context, is it possible to pinpoint respects in which the L1(s) are likely to affect the V2 component of a V2 language?

  Practical Information

  The workshop will last 2.5 days, of which the first half-day will be an afternoon during which local researchers will present their current Verb Second-related work:

  Theresa Biberauer, Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics

  Adam Ledgeway, Department of Italian

  Teresa Parodi, Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics

  David Willis, Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics

  Sam Wolfe, Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics

The following two days will feature talks by the invited speakers and by those whose abstracts will be selected via a process of peer review (with an international review committee).

The conference will close with a round table on Verb Second, convened by Ian Roberts.

Anonymous abstracts should not exceed two pages (12-point Times New Roman font, with single spacing and margins of at least 2.54cm/1inch), including examples and references. They should be uploaded in pdf format via EasyAbstracts (http://linguistlist.org/easyabs/rethinkingv2).

The submission deadline for abstracts is Monday 7th December. Notification of acceptance will take place on Monday 21st December.

Do not hesitate to contact Sam Wolfe (sw493@cam.ac.uk) for more information.