English Syntax in Three Dimensions - C. Trips
§10 Syntactic variation
In this chapter we will cover syntactic variation in non-standard varieties of English. This means
that there is variation within the formation of sentences and phrases from words.
Generally, most languages have a (written) standard language they use as a ‘reference guide’.
More precisely, a standard is a pan-regional form of oral and written language which functions as
the public means of communication.
This de nition somehow implies that there is something else, namely other forms or varieties of a
language which are felt to stand in opposition to the standard and are thus often called non-
standard varieties.
The di erences we nd between syntactic constructions in the standard and in the non-standard
varieties are numerous. Examples are pronoun exchange (didn’t us [us=we] or they knowed I
[I=me]) and non-agreement (there is advantages or she look after us).
Sociolinguist William Labov argued that any variable form (a member of a set of alternative ways
of ‘saying the same thing’) should be reported with the proportion of cases in which the form did
occur in the relevant environment, compared to the total number of cases in which it might have
occurred.
Fundamental di erences between the nature of phonology and syntax have made it a di cult task
to extend Labov’s methods to syntax. For example, it is very di cult to determine strict semantic
equivalence between two syntactic variables.
Let’s take a look at the instance of double modals:
He would could do it if he tried.
‘He would be able to do it if he tried.’ (Brown 1991)
Brown assumes that the rst modal in the expression has an epistemic value (probability,
possibility) whereas the nal modal has a so-called root sense (basic meaning).
According to this assumption, the double modals are an alternate variable to the Standard English
expressions, so the traditional de nition of variation holds.
These constructions (double modals) are used by the speaker to express politeness and certainty
without wanting to show de nite certainty. So this variable of the non-standard does not have an
equivalent in the standard. Since there seem to be two systems at work, i.e. two dialects or
languages, this type of syntactic variation could be called parametric variation. Parametric
variation is often found between a standard and a non-standard form.
We also know that these two varieties are in consistent contact because standard varieties are
often viewed by speakers as being inherently superior, which is why they try to adopt the
standard. So obviously social constraints play a role in the use and acceptance of non-standard
features.
§11 Comparative syntax from a synchronic perspective
A prominent linguistic approach to syntax is word order typology. In this approach the order of
the syntactic constituents of a language are studied, as well as how di erent orders are
approached in di erent languages.
Generally, six theoretically possible basic word orders are distinguished: SVO, SOV, VSO, VOS,
OSV and OVS. The vast majority of languages in the world are either SVO or SOV.
We will take a closer look at one phenomenon which is peculiar to the modern Germanic
languages: The Verb Second phenomenon. This word order pattern of main declaratives has
been labelled ‘Verb Second’ because the nite verb has to occur in the second position. This is a
property of most of today’s West Germanic and Scandinavian languages.
fffi ffff fi fifi fi fi fi ffi ff ffi
, When looking at di erent types of sentences across Germanic and Romance languages, it seems
that the Verb Second rule is inviolable, i.e. violation strictly results in ungrammaticality.
The only two languages which exhibit
ungrammatical sentences when the nite verb
directly follows the rst constituent and
precedes the subject are English and French.
The sentences can be ‘rescued’ if the order of
the nite verb and the subject are reversed.
(Verb Third)
The contexts in which the rst constituent is occupied by an object, an adverbial and a wh-
constituent, i.e. not by the subject, clearly show that the nite verb always inverts with the
subject. In the literature, it has been claimed that this is a prerequisite for Verb Second. This
implies that in these languages subject-verb inversion occurs in all main declarative sentences
regardless of the status of the rst constituent.
So the structure underlying the Verb Second rule is: [any constituent] - V n - Subject - …
Among the Germanic languages PDE is the exception because it displays Verb Second only in a
restricted set of contexts like constituent questions = residual Verb Second
Subordinate clauses
So at rst sight Verb Second only occurs in main declarative sentences. However, there are some
exceptions: in clauses which are complements of so-called bridge verbs, i.e. verbs of saying or
verbs of perception like say or believe, Verb Second is an option. This is not possible in PDE.
§12 Movement and its application to the syntax of English
Typologically English is an SVO language which shows this order quite rigidly in main declarative
sentences and in subordinate clauses. This is shown in the following two sentences:
a) EricS hasAux read this book.
b) because EricS hasAux read this book.
The other three sentences, however, deviate from this pattern: in all of these cases the nite verb
directly precedes the subject. We can state that subject-verb inversion has taken place:
c) Which book hasAux EricS read?
d) Never in my life haveAux IS questioned an appointment . . .
e) Down the stairs cameV the catS, sullen-eyed.
In English an adverb like often must precede the lexical verb; this is not the case for French. How
do we explain this? We can do so by assuming di erent unmarked positions for lexical verbs in a
sentence. The structure of an expression in (any) language can be described at two levels: a deep
level (original structure) and a surface level (surface structure). These two levels are linked by
transformations which mainly involve moving elements from one position to another.
In that case either the in ectional su x in I is lowered to the lexical verb in V, or the lexical verb in
V is raised to the in ectional su x in I. We have already seen that raising is not an option in
English.
Further, since the lexical verb is the head of the core VP it is lower down than the head of
I. This is why we say that when I joins V, it lowers onto V. In French, the process of raising
takes place: the verb in V leaves the VP and moves up to I. By assuming the processes
of lowering and raising we can explain the observed di erences between English and
French.
When an adverb is preceded by auxiliaries (will, has, and does) it can ll the position of I.
fi fi
ffflfi fl fi fiffi ffi
fi ff fffi fi fi fi
