[Lingtyp] Subject-verb inversion with transitive verbs

[Ernei Ribeiro]

Dear all,



Languages like Spanish or Italian have a default, unmarked word order SVO
that is most compatible with discourse contexts where no part of the clause
is focused. However, these languages also display an alternative VS word
order in declarative sentences, sometimes depending on discourse context
and notions such as topic and focus. This alternative word order is
illustrated in (1a) and (1b) with Italian and Spanish examples.
Subject-verb inversion with transitive verbs is not possible in English, as
shown in (1c).



(1)

a.

*Ha*

*mangiato*

*un*

*dolce*

*il*

*ragazzo**.*

(Italian)





has

eaten

a

dessert

the

young man





b.

*Sabe*

*la*

*lección*

*María**.*





(Spanish)





knows

the

lesson

María









c.

**In this rainforest can find a lucky hiker the reclusive lyrebird.*

(English)



It is generally assumed (Barbosa 2009) that languages like Spanish or
Italian allow subject-verb inversion with transitive verbs because they
have rich agreement, while English or French do not allow such inversion
because they have poor agreement.



Subject-verb inversion with transitive verbs is also seen in languages
without agreement. Japanese allows subject inversion, as shown in (2ab),
while Chinese does not, as seen in (2cd). This is clearly related to the
fact that Japanese has case morphology on nouns, while Chinese does not.



(2)

a.

*Tarō-ga*

*kēki-o*

*tabe-mashita.*



(Japanese)





Taro-NOM

cake-ACC

ate







b.

*kēki-o*

*tabe-mashita,*

*Tarō-ga*









cake-ACC

ate

Taro-NOM









‘Taro ate cake.’





c.

*Zhangsan*

*da*

*dianhua*

*le*

(Chinese)





Zhangsan

make

phone-call

ASP





d.

**da*

*dianhua*

*le*

*Zhangsan*







make

phone-call

ASP

Zhangsan







‘Zangsan made a phone call.’





Note that English and Chinese might sometimes allow subject-verb inversion
involving intransitive verbs, as in the English directive inversion in (3a)
and the Chinese clause with an indefinite subject in (3b).



(3)

a.

*Into the room came two students.*

(English)



b.

*lai*

*le*

*keren*

(Chinese)





come

ASP

guest







‘There came (some) guests.’





I am searching for possible exceptions to the aforementioned
generalizations, that is:



(4) Are there languages without agreement and without case morphology on
nouns that allow subject-verb inversion with transitive verbs?



(5) Are there languages with poor agreement and without case morphology on
nouns that allow subject-verb inversion with transitive verbs?



(6) Are there languages with rich agreement that DO NOT allow subject-verb
inversion with transitive verbs?



(7) Are there languages with case morphology on nouns that DO NOT allow
subject-verb inversion with transitive verbs?



Many linguists have noted that it is difficult to define “rich agreement.”
For the time being, I will consider agreement to be “rich” if it
distinguishes six or more person, number and gender combinations, as in the
Spanish present tense conjugation of the verb ‘eat’ in (8a). I will
consider agreement to be “poor” if it distinguishes five or fewer such
combinations, as in the English present tense in (8b).



(8)

a.

1SG

*com-o*



b.

1SG

*eat-Ø*





2SG

*com-es*





2SG

*eat-Ø*





3SG

*com-e*





3SG

*eat-s*





1PL

*com-emos*





1PL

*eat-Ø*





2PL

*com-éis*





2PL

*eat-Ø*





3PL

*com-en*





3PL

*eat-Ø*



Reference

Barbosa, Pilar. "Two kinds of subject pro." Studia Linguistica 63.1 (2009):
2-58.



Best regards,

Ernei
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20200412/a127d794/attachment.htm>