Volume 23, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2211-6834
  • E-ISSN: 2211-6842



This article sketches a new analysis of the diachronic development found in many West Germanic languages from a hybrid VO-OV order to a rigid OV or VO order. The discussion departs from the discussions in Struik & Van Kemenade (2020/2022) and Struik & Schoenmakers (to appear) on the diachronic development of English/Dutch, which focus on the role of object shift and information structure. My interpretation of their data will be based on an earlier analysis of the Germanic OV and VO languages in Broekhuis (2008: § 2.4; 2011). The main conclusions are the following. First, the change from the historical hybrid VO-OV systems to the rigid OV and VO systems of the present-day languages is due to changing the “setting” [±V‑to‑] to the more categorical ones [−V-to-] or [+V-to-]. Second, the role of object shift in the diachronic development is modest; it is not involved in the development of the OV-languages at all and involves only the (partial) loss of object shift in the VO-languages (contra Struik et al.). Third, the encoding of the information-structural - distinction remains constant in that the interpretation of (un)scrambled nominal objects does not change over time (contra Struik & Schoenmakers).

Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.

Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Archangeli, Diana & Terence Langendoen
    1997Optimality Theory. An overview. Malden/Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Biberauer, Theresa, Gleanda Newton & Michelle Sheehan
    2009The Final-over-Final constraint and predictions for diachronic change. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 31, https://twpl.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/twpl/article/view/6091
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Broekhuis, Hans
    2000 Against feature strength. The case of Scandinavian object shift. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory181: 673–721. 10.1023/A:1006488204226
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006488204226 [Google Scholar]
  4. 2008Derivations and evaluations: object shift in the Germanic languages. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110207200
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110207200 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2011 A typology of clause structure. InLinguistic Variation Yearbook 2010, eds.Jeroen van Craenenbroeck and Johan Rooryck, 1–31. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/livy.10.01bro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/livy.10.01bro [Google Scholar]
  6. 2020 Object shift and object scrambling. InThe Cambridge handbook of Germanic linguistics, eds.Michael T. Putnam and B. Richard Page, 413–432. Cambridge (UK)/New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108378291.019
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108378291.019 [Google Scholar]
  7. . to appear a. Object shift and object scrambling in Germanic. InThe Oxford Encyclopedia of Germanic Linguistics eds. Jarich Hoekstra, Steffen Höder, Oliver Schallert and Freek Van de Velde. Oxford: Oxford University Press. lingbuzz.net/lingbuzz/006444.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. . to appear b. Scrambling of definite object NPs in Dutch. Nederlandse Taalkunde/Dutch Linguistics. lingbuzz.net/lingbuzz/005818.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Broekhuis, Hans & Norbert Corver
    2016Syntax of Dutch. Verbs and verb phrases, volume 3. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. 10.26530/OAPEN_614910
    https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_614910 [Google Scholar]
  10. Broekhuis, Hans & Joost Dekkers
    2000 The minimalist program and optimality theory: derivations and evaluations. InOptimality Theory: phonology, syntax and acquisition, eds.Joost Dekkers, Frank van der Leeuw and Jeroen van de Weijer, 386–422. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Broekhuis, Hans & Ralf Vogel
    (eds) 2013Linguistic derivations and filtering. Minimalism and optimality theory. Sheffield (UK)/Bristol (USA): Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Broekhuis, Hans & Ellen Woolford
    2013 Minimalism and optimality theory. InThe Cambridge handbook of generative syntax, ed.Marcel Den Dikken, 122–161: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511804571.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804571.008 [Google Scholar]
  13. Burridge, Kate
    1993Syntactic change in Germanic. Aspects of language change in Germanic with particular reference to Middle Dutch. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/cilt.89
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.89 [Google Scholar]
  14. Chomsky, Noam
    1986Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 1995The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 2001 Derivation by phase. InKen Hale. A life in Language, ed.Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Christensen, Ken Ramshøj
    2005 Interfaces. Negation – syntax – brain, University of Aarhus: PhD thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Cloutier, Robert A.
    2008 West Germanic OV and VO. The status of exceptions, University of Amsterdam: PhD thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Costa, João
    1998 Word order variation. A constraint-based approach, University of Leiden: PhD thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Dekkers, Joost, Frank Van der Leeuw & Jeroen Van de Weijer
    (eds) 2000Optimality theory: phonology, syntax and acquisitionOxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Diesing, Molly
    1997 Yiddish VP order and the typology of object movement in Germanic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory171: 369–427. 10.1023/A:1005778326537
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005778326537 [Google Scholar]
  22. Diesing, Molly & Eloise Jelinek
    1995 Distiributing arguments. Natural Language Semantics31: 123–176. 10.1007/BF01249836
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01249836 [Google Scholar]
  23. Emonds, Joseph
    1978 The verbal complex V′–V in French. Linguistic Inquiry91: 49–77.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Francis, Elaine J.
    2022Gradient acceptability and linguistic theory. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Grimshaw, Jane
    1997 Projection, heads and optimality. Linguistic Inquiry281: 373–422.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Haider, Hubert
    2020 A null theory of scrambling. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft391: 375–405. 10.1515/zfs‑2020‑2019
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2020-2019 [Google Scholar]
  27. Holmberg, Anders
    1986 Word order and syntactic features in the Scandinavian languages and English, University of Stockholm: PhD thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Johnson, Kyle
    1991 Object positions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory91: 577–636. 10.1007/BF00134751
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00134751 [Google Scholar]
  29. Kayne, Richard S.
    1994The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 1998 Overt vs. covert movement. Syntax11: 128–191. [Also published as chapter 13 inParameters and universals. Oxford University Press (2000)].
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Koeneman, Olaf
    2006 Shape conservation, Holmberg’s generalization and predication. InComparatieve studies in Germanic syntax, eds.Jutta M. Hartmann and László Molnárfi. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.97.04koe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.97.04koe [Google Scholar]
  32. Komen, Erwin
    2013 Finding focus: a study of the historical development of focus in English, Radboud Universiteit: PhD thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Lasnik, Howard
    1999Minimalist analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Legendre, Géraldine, Michael T. Putnam, Henriëtte De Swart & Zaroukian
    (eds) 2016Optimality-theoretic syntax, semantics, and pragmatics: From uni- to bidirectional optimization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198757115.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198757115.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  35. Lestrade, Sander, Geertje Van Bergen & Peter De Swart
    2016 On the origin of constraints. InOptimality-theoretic syntax, semantics and pragmatics. From uni- to bidirectional optimization, 179–199. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198757115.003.0008
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198757115.003.0008 [Google Scholar]
  36. Müller, Gereon & Wolfgang Sternefeld
    (eds) 2001Competition in Syntax. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110829068
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110829068 [Google Scholar]
  37. Pintzuk, Susan
    1999Phrase structures in competition: Variation and change in Old English word order. New York: Garland Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Pollock, Jean-Yves
    1989 Verb movement, universal grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry201: 365–424.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Putnam, Michael T.
    2007Scrambling and the Survive Principle. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.115
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.115 [Google Scholar]
  40. Schoenmakers, Gert-Jan
    2022 Definite objects in the wild: a converging evidence approach to scrambling in the Dutch middle-field, Radboud University Nijmegen: PhD thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Sells, Peter
    2001Structure, alignment and optimality in Swedish. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Struckmeier, Volker
    2017 Against information structure heads: a relational analysis of German scrambling. Glossa21: 1–29. 10.5334/gjgl.56
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.56 [Google Scholar]
  43. Struik, Tara
    2022 Information structure triggers for word order varation and change: The OV/VO alternation in the West Germanic languages, Radboud University Nijmegen: PhD thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Struik, Tara & Gert-Jan Schoenmakers
    . to appear. When information structure exploits syntax: the relation between the loss of VO and scrambling in Dutch. Journal of Linguistics. 10.1017/S0022226722000172
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226722000172 [Google Scholar]
  45. Struik, Tara & Ans Van Kemenade
    2020 On the givenness of OV word order: A (re)examination of OV/VO variation in Old English. English Language and Linguistics241: 1–22. 10.1017/S1360674318000187
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674318000187 [Google Scholar]
  46. Struik, Tara & Ans van Kemenade
    2022 Information structure and OV word order in Old and Middle English: a phase-based approach. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics251: 79–114. 10.1007/s10828‑022‑09131‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-022-09131-1 [Google Scholar]
  47. Taylor, Ann & Susan Pintzuk
    2011 The interaction of syntactic change and information status effects in the change from OV to VO in English Catalan Journal of Linguistics101: 71–94. 10.5565/rev/catjl.61
    https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/catjl.61 [Google Scholar]
  48. 2012 Rethinking the OV/VO alternation in Old English: The effect of complexity, grammatical weight, and information status. InThe Oxford Handbook of the History of English, eds.Terttu Nevalainen and Elizabeth Closs Traugott, 835–845. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199922765.013.0068
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199922765.013.0068 [Google Scholar]
  49. Thráinsson, Höskuldur
    2007The syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511619441
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619441 [Google Scholar]
  50. Van Kemenade, Ans
    1987Syntactic case and morphological case in the history of English. Dorderecht/Providence: Foris Publication. 10.1515/9783110882308
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110882308 [Google Scholar]
  51. Verhagen, Arie
    1986Linguistic theory and the function of word order in Dutch. A study on interpretive aspects of the order of adverbials and noun phrases. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error