The force of V2 revisited

Abstract

The main claim of this paper is that embedded V2 clauses in Mainland Scandinavian have the same syntactic structure as main clauses. This means that embedded V2 clauses contain a Force head, and as a consequence, embedded declarative V2 clauses will normally be asserted. Embedded V2 clauses are also similar to main clauses in that they contain linkers which encode the local speaker and addressee. Hence, indexical shift is possible in embedded V2 clauses, but not in non-V2 clauses, which do not contain linkers. In shifted contexts, the assertion that the embedded clause represents will be attributed to the local, implicit speaker, while in other cases, the actual speaker will be responsible for the assertion. The Force head is also the source of the V2 order, since it attracts the finite verb in addition to attracting a phrase from its complement to its Spec. In this way, the connection between V2 order and illocutionary force gets a straightforward explanation.

What usage can tell us about grammar: Embedded verb second in Scandinavian

“…A popular approach to EV2, going back to Hooper & Thompson's now classical work, is to argue that embedded clauses with V2 order are asserted-although little consensus has been reached in the literature with respect to what it means for a sentence to be asserted (Grice 1957;Stalnaker 1974;1978;et seq), or what specific notion of assertion is relevant to the licensing of EV2 (e.g. Andersson 1975;Green 1976;Wechsler 1991;Holmberg & Platzack 1995;Truckenbrodt 2006;Julien 2009;Wiklund 2010;Gärtner & Michaelis 2010;Jensen & Christensen 2013;Julien 2015;Woods 2016a;b). On the other hand, it has been argued that what actually matters for the licensing of EV2, and embedded MCP more generally, are lexical properties of the matrix predicate.…”

A micro-perspective on Verb-second in Romance and Germanic

“…In (10), there is no complementiser, and the embedded clause has a V2 structure. (Julien, 2009(Julien, , 2015Wiklund et al, 2009). Unlike Dutch, German and Scandinavian, Icelandic has been reported to permit V2 under all kinds of verbs (Rögnvaldsson and Thrainsson, 1990 (Wiklund et al, 2009).…”

“…According to Wolfe, V2 languages may be divided into two groups: Those with a high locus for V2 (Force-V2) and those with a low locus for V2 (Fin-V2). A language that is Force-V2 has a limited number of accessible positions to the left of the finite verb, which means that V2 violations are few, and the language is characterised as a strict V2 lan- Østbø, 2007;Eide, 2011;Eide and Sollid, 2011;Julien, 2015).…”

The Syntax of Assertion and Presupposition

“…For instance, while believe clearly implies commitment to p, it is less clear what to expect for other non-factive doxastic predicates like assume, guess, imagine (cf. Truckenbrodt 2006;Julien 2015). Adopting a different perspective, other authors have argued that the type of complement that allows MCP is selected for only by particular verbs.…”

“…Circumventing the issue presented by the factives, a number of researchers have proposed that the dimension of assertion relevant to the licensing of MCP is only that in (2-a): that the speaker (or attitude holder) is committed to p (e.g. Truckenbrodt 2006;Wiklund 2010;Julien 2015;Woods 2016). That is, while (2-b) is at odds with factivity, speaker commitment to p is a defining feature of factive predicates.…”