{"title":"古法语V2中哪些是日耳曼语,哪些不是","authors":"Espen Klævik-Pettersen","doi":"10.1075/lv.00011.kla","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Old French is considered by many to have been a verb-second (V2)\n language. Furthermore, 13th century Old French featured a V2 system with strong\n restrictions on the prefield, meaning only a single constituent was generally\n accepted to the left of the finite verb. This bears a strong resemblance to the\n pattern found in the Modern Germanic V2 languages and has occasionally given\n rise to suggestions that V2 was a Germanic property inherited from the language\n of the Franks. In this paper, a concrete hypothesis is developed for the\n diachronic evolution of Old French V2 from Late Latin. It is argued that the\n hypothesis of Germanic influence is not necessarily incorrect, but too\n simplistic, as the two synchronic components of the Old French V2 construction\n -namely V-to-C movement and restrictions on the prefield – most likely have\n their own and independent diachronies as well. Comparative and historical\n evidence is presented to show that V-to-C movement is very unlikely to have been\n a product of Germanic influence and should rather be considered an internal\n development from Latin. As for the restricted prefield (so-called ‘linear V2’),\n the scarcity or even absence of evidence does not allow firm conclusions, but\n some general theoretical insights from the literature on language change and\n second language acquisition combine to make the idea of Germanic influence quite\n plausible.","PeriodicalId":53947,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Variation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What is Germanic and what is not about Old French\\n V2\",\"authors\":\"Espen Klævik-Pettersen\",\"doi\":\"10.1075/lv.00011.kla\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Old French is considered by many to have been a verb-second (V2)\\n language. Furthermore, 13th century Old French featured a V2 system with strong\\n restrictions on the prefield, meaning only a single constituent was generally\\n accepted to the left of the finite verb. This bears a strong resemblance to the\\n pattern found in the Modern Germanic V2 languages and has occasionally given\\n rise to suggestions that V2 was a Germanic property inherited from the language\\n of the Franks. In this paper, a concrete hypothesis is developed for the\\n diachronic evolution of Old French V2 from Late Latin. It is argued that the\\n hypothesis of Germanic influence is not necessarily incorrect, but too\\n simplistic, as the two synchronic components of the Old French V2 construction\\n -namely V-to-C movement and restrictions on the prefield – most likely have\\n their own and independent diachronies as well. Comparative and historical\\n evidence is presented to show that V-to-C movement is very unlikely to have been\\n a product of Germanic influence and should rather be considered an internal\\n development from Latin. As for the restricted prefield (so-called ‘linear V2’),\\n the scarcity or even absence of evidence does not allow firm conclusions, but\\n some general theoretical insights from the literature on language change and\\n second language acquisition combine to make the idea of Germanic influence quite\\n plausible.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53947,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Linguistic Variation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Linguistic Variation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.00011.kla\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Linguistic Variation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.00011.kla","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
What is Germanic and what is not about Old French
V2
Old French is considered by many to have been a verb-second (V2)
language. Furthermore, 13th century Old French featured a V2 system with strong
restrictions on the prefield, meaning only a single constituent was generally
accepted to the left of the finite verb. This bears a strong resemblance to the
pattern found in the Modern Germanic V2 languages and has occasionally given
rise to suggestions that V2 was a Germanic property inherited from the language
of the Franks. In this paper, a concrete hypothesis is developed for the
diachronic evolution of Old French V2 from Late Latin. It is argued that the
hypothesis of Germanic influence is not necessarily incorrect, but too
simplistic, as the two synchronic components of the Old French V2 construction
-namely V-to-C movement and restrictions on the prefield – most likely have
their own and independent diachronies as well. Comparative and historical
evidence is presented to show that V-to-C movement is very unlikely to have been
a product of Germanic influence and should rather be considered an internal
development from Latin. As for the restricted prefield (so-called ‘linear V2’),
the scarcity or even absence of evidence does not allow firm conclusions, but
some general theoretical insights from the literature on language change and
second language acquisition combine to make the idea of Germanic influence quite
plausible.
期刊介绍:
Linguistic Variation is an international, peer-reviewed journal that focuses on the study of linguistic variation. It seeks to investigate to what extent the study of linguistic variation can shed light on the broader issue of language-particular versus language-universal properties, on the interaction between what is fixed and necessary on the one hand and what is variable and contingent on the other. This enterprise involves properly defining and delineating the notion of linguistic variation by identifying loci of variation. What are the variable properties of natural language and what is its invariant core?