Different word order patterns can form paradigmatic oppositions in the sense of alter-nations between members of a limited set of complex signs. We open our discussion of this issue by considering Danish – as an example of Mainland Scandinavian verb sec-ond order (or short V2 in examples and tables). In Heltoft (1996), the word order con-trast between interrogative and declarative potential was used to generalise the concept of a paradigm to also comprise closed oppositions of word order. We shall elaborate this analysis by pointing out that such paradigms are really best understood as com-plex paradigms uniting more than one set of oppositions. In examples (1ab), the ‘emic’
difference between interrogative and declarative potential is expressed by a combined syntagmatic and paradigmatic opposition. The initial position (Dik (1989 and later):
P1, Diderichsen (1946): F for ‘fundamental field’) either holds a full constituent or it is empty. In the latter case, the subject position S (3rd position) must hold the subject.
‘Part’ is the field for particles and sentence adverbials.
46 Connecting Grammaticalisation (1) Declarative
a. F V S Part
Så spis-te hun
then eat-pst she.nom ‘Then she ate’
b. Hun spis-te (-) så
she.nom eat-pst then
‘She ate, then’
(2) Interrogative
F V S Part
(-) Spis-te hun så?
eat-pst she.nom then ‘Did she eat, then?’
Any material of propositional character may function as the initial constituent. The subject is the unmarked filler, but situational and cohesive adverbials are frequent.
Objects are found as well.
Traditionally, the content of the opposition (1) vs. (2) is labelled realis vs. non-realis (irrealis meaning ‘counterfactuality’). For reasons that will become clear in Chapter 6, we shall speak of the opposition as Realis vs. Conditioned realis. It is found both in main clauses and in subordinate clauses, but we shall restrict ourselves here to main clauses, see Chapter 6 and Christensen (2007) for the full picture.
The point is that present-day Danish word order connects with mood. To be operational, this paradigm presupposes the choice of non-imperative mood, either in the form of the indicative in -er, or through the preterite (distal) form, which is non-imperative by default. The imperative mood is incompatible with the contrast documented between zero filling of F and a positive filling of F. In other words, for the word order contrast to apply, the right mood must be selected. In fact imperative sentences have no F. The imperative can be preceded by a cohesive adverb, as in (3ac), but omitting this adverb (3bd) has no semantic consequence similar to the contrast in (1) vs. (2).
(3) a. Så spis dog!
then eat-imp particle ‘Then eat’
b. Spis dog!
c. Så spis du bare!
then eat-imp you.sg particle ‘Then just eat’
d. Spis du bare!
Chapter 2. Topology (word order) 47
A topological analysis of these examples is shown in (4).
(4) Cohesive adverb V S Part
Så spis dog!
Spis dog!
Så spis du bare!
Spis du bare!
The point is that the position Cohesive adverb has no sign function similar to F, and therefore, it is not part of the paradigm expressed through F. This means that the word order template for the imperative sentence is different from the non-imperative (declarative) template at both levels: expression and content.
The opposition within the imperative sentences between (5ab) and (5cd) unfolds another aspect of this complex paradigm. An explicit 2nd person subject is possible, but this has the semantic consequence of specifying the illocutionary potential of the imperative to a subset of the directives, namely those that have the preparatory rule that ‘the receiver has an interest in the realisation of the propositional content of the speech act’: permitting, offering, encourageing, giving advice (Searle 1969: 67).20 (5) a. Så spis du!
b. Spis du!
c. Så spis!
d. Spis!
The choice of the imperative form automatically entails another set of options. There is no realis paradigm, but another paradigm opens, namely that of an explicit 2nd person subject vs. a zero subject. Given this stance, it makes no sense to say that the imperative follows the verb second pattern, since the topological codings are so mark-edly different.
Looking back in history, we find earlier codings of verb second patterns that com-prised both imperative and non-imperative clauses. In middle Danish, the imperative could occur both in main clauses and in subordinate clauses, and subjects and at least some other propositional constituents could precede the imperative verb.
(6) a. Ac bith thæc at thu tac min sial oc I pray-1sg you.obl that you take-imp.sg my soul and lat mic ændæ min strith
let-imp.sg me.obl end my struggle
‘I pray thee that thou takest my soul and let me end my struggle’
(Legend of St. Christina. GL 285, 31–33)
20. Promising has this preparatory rule as well (Searle 1969: 58), but is taken to be a com-missive, not a directive (Searle 1979).
48 Connecting Grammaticalisation
b. 〈‘Since I have to commit this sin, then it must remain absolutely secret’〉:
thy lat giøra vppe i tornit et hemelikt hws…
therefore let-imp.sg make up in the tower a secret room…
i hwilko som wi magh-om hemeliga blifva in which that we can-1pl secretly remain
‘Therefore have a room made up in the tower in which we can dwell in
secret’ (SjT 68, 29–30)
We have found no mention of this in Nygaard (1905) Old Norwegian and Old Ice-landic, and none either in Faarlund (2004).21 We take this to be a shortcoming, since examples are easily found:
(7) Nu vil ek bjóða þér lög, segir Gunnlaugr, at þú now will I offer you the conditions, says G., that you
gjalt mér fé mitt eða gakk á
compensate-imp.sg me my belongings, or go-imp.sg at hólm við mik
holm with me. (Gunnlaugs saga, Wimmer Oldnordisk læsebog 86) We do not claim that medieval verb second is paradigmatically identical to the mod-ern language; on the contrary, our point is that they differ, see Chapter 6. It is quite likely that the relation of the imperative to verb second was different in the medieval language (probably parallel to the subjunctive, see Chapter 6).
These findings are in accordance with the view that the verb second pattern of earlier periods was not similar to the present day verb second system. The medieval system did not code Realis vs. Conditioned Realis. In particular, the XV pattern (with the initial position X filled in)22 did not code Realis, let alone assertive illocutionary potential. It is likely that Old Scandinavian verb second order coded a textual oppo-sition and not an illocutionary dimension, see Chapter 5. Verb second word order occurred e.g. in conditional contexts that would create inconsistency with the verb second pattern of the modern language. Examples of now impossible verb second in subordinate clauses are (8ab). Note that conjunctions and subjunctions do not count in the topological balance-sheet:
(8) a. Æn vm hin orcar æy thre marc ær but if he is able to not three marks that
21. Falk & Torp (1900: 192) treat Dano-Norwegian, but include an Icelandic example. For sources to Chapter 2, see Chapter 6.
22. The modern F for fundament (‘predication base’) is dispreferred for the old language, since the initial position does not code any such function.
Chapter 2. Topology (word order) 49
brutit hafuir. tha … offended has, then …
‘but if the offender cannot provide three marks, then.. ’
(Scanian Ecclesiastical Law 4. GL 11, 6–8)
b. Æn vm rop far æntwigiæ man. ællar
but if bad reputation-acc has either man-nom or kun-a. vm swa vrthit mal. schær-e
woman-NOM about such happened case exculpate-prs.sbjv sic mæth iarne.
refl with iron
‘If either a man or a woman has the bad reputation of having done such a thing 〈witchcraft〉, he/she must exculpate himself/herself with iron’
(Scanian Ecclesiastical Law 11. GL 14, 24–26) In clauses like these, the subjunction is outside the topological frame. The initial posi-tions in (6)–(8) are shown in (9):
(9) x (initial) v s neg proposition
at thu tac min sial
thy lat giøra vppe i tornit et
hemelikt hws
at þú gjalt mér fé mitt,
eða gakk á hólm við mik
vm hin orcar æy thre marc
vm rop far æntwigiæ man
ællar kuna
Notice the two verb second signals in (8ab): the position of sentence adverbials and focus operators (negation) after the finite verb (8a), and secondly, the possibility for an object to topicalise (8b).23
No similar clauses can be found in the modern language (10ab); for (10a), we must have (10c), and (10b) must be (10d):
(10) a. *hvis skyldneren kan ikke betale renterne if the debtor can not pay the interest
23. We disagree with Scandinavian generative grammar about their separating cases like these from so-called stylistic fronting. From this it follows that we do not share their view that main clauses have the finite verb in COMP, subordinate clauses in I.
50 Connecting Grammaticalisation
b. *hvis det omdømme får en mand at…
if the reputation gets a man that…
c. hvis skyldneren ikke kan betale renterne d. hvis en mand får det omdømme at…
In a generalised form: the modern language would not allow verb second in these cases, but demands S(Advb)VO, sentence adverbials necessarily preceding the finite verb.
Lars Heltoft will return to this development in detail in Chapter 6. At present, we shall underscore the character of this development as it already appears from the scanty data considered. Modern declarative verb second must be seen as a specification of a relatively open or unmarked verb second found in the old Scandinavian languages and, strikingly, also in Old French, cf. Chapter 6. The modern realis-interpretation fol-lows from a specification of the pattern to manifest illocutionary potential (‘assertive potential’), whereas the old language also allowed declarative interpretations of clauses with an empty fundamental field and an indicative mood:
(11) Ey vilde i til scrifte gange ey faste ey almusse gerninge gøræ Not would you confess, not fast not acts of charity do mæn var-e i lygner och vdædiss mæn
but be.pst-pl you.2pl liars and crooks i alt eters liffdag
in all your livingday
‘You would not confess, nor fast, nor do acts of charity, but you were liars and crooks all your lives’ (Torment of St. Paul GL 355, 22–23)
(11′) conjunction x v s neg proposition Ey vilde i til scrifte gange
ey faste
ey almusse gerninge gøræ
mæn vare i lygner och vdædiss mæn i alt eters liffdag
Example (11) has an empty fundamental field, namely in the fourth clause: mæn vare i lygner oc (…), but is nevertheless a declarative sentence. It follows that zero funda-ments are not ‘emic’ signals of conditioned realis, in contrast to the modern language, see Chapter 6.
Thus, we stress the importance of accurate analyses of topological paradigmatic organisation as a prerequisite for the study of grammatical word order change. Such processes resemble morphological change in the sense that they consist in paradigmatic
Chapter 2. Topology (word order) 51
reshaping of content, normally accompanied by changes of expression, that is: of word order rules. In what follows, we shall show instances of topological change as gramma-tion, regrammation and degrammation.