Marit Julien

Embedded V2 in Scandinavian

In Mainland Scandinavian, the finite verb is normally in second  position in main clauses, while embedded clauses have non-V2 word  order. INevertheless, embedded clauses sometimes also show V2 order.  In the linguistic literature, the explanations that have been offered  for embedded V2 in Germanic are of two types. On the one hand, it has  been claimed that the semantic properties of the embedded clause  itself are crucial; more precisely, that embedded V2 is more frequent  in clauses that represent an asserted proposition (see Andersson  1975, G. Green 1976, Wechsler 1991, Holmberg & Platzack 1995). On the  other hand, the possibility of having V2 order in an embedded  sentence has been seen as a consequence of certain properties of the  matrix predicate. De Haan & Weerman (1986), Iatridou & Kroch (1992),  and perhaps most famously, Vikner (1995), note that V2 is seen in  clausal complements of certain verbs, called "bridge verbs". But as  Vikner points out, the verbs in question are not necessarily bridge  verbs in the sense that they allow extraction out of the clause they  have as complement. In fact, according to Vikner it seems that his  "bridge verbs" are only distinguished as a group by their ability to  take a V2 complement, and moreover, there is some variation between  the Germanic languages as to which verbs have this property. Hence,  Vikner concludes that its semantics is not what makes a verb a  "bridge verb".  

What I will argue is that embedded V2 is closely tied to the  semantics of the embedded clause itself: only asserted embedded  clauses can have V2 order. The matrix predicate only has an indirect  effect, as not all predicates can have an asserted clause as  complement. But as we shall see, V2-clauses can be embedded under  elements belonging to many different classes, and in many cases one  cannot say that it is the embedding element that makes embedded V2  possible.  

I will also suggest a formal analysis of embedded V2. In my opinion,  the biggest shortcoming of many earlier analyses is that they do not  establish a connection between the semantics of embedded V2 clauses  and their syntax. But in my analysis, syntax and semantics are tied  together -- the structure that I propose results in V2 order and in  the asserted status of the clause. And as we will see, this analysis  can also account for V2 in root clauses, so that the V2 phenomenon  gets a uniform explanation.  

Finally, I will present some examples where a constituent has moved  from the embedded V2-clause into the matrix clause. It is usually  assumed that movement of this kind is not possible, but it  nevertheless appears that some speakers of Scandinavian accept it.  This fact has consequences for the analysis of embedded V2.