2. V2 in Yiddish: Initial Assumptions and Data

The literature on V2 in Germanic distinguishes between C-V2 and I-V2 languages (Holmberg Reference Holmberg, Kiss and Alexiadou2015). Another way of characterizing the distinction is in terms of the domain of the root declarative clause—is it CP or TP (Pereltsvaig Reference Pereltsvaig, Oseki, Esipova and Harves2016)? In either formulation, C-V2 is associated with asymmetric V2 and I-V2 with symmetric V2 (Holmberg Reference Holmberg, Kiss and Alexiadou2015).Footnote ² For expository purposes in this paper, we follow Pereltsvaig’s parametric analysis of V2 in Yiddish. Under her analysis, TP/IP is the domain of the root declarative clause (see Diesing Reference Diesing1990). Giving a fuller description in terms of Pereltsvaig’s parameters, Yiddish has V-to-T raising, unlike English or Mainland Scandinavian. However, like Scandinavian (and unlike Continental West Germanic) Yiddish is head-initial. A further locus of variation is that Nominative case is a weak feature in Yiddish—that is, the subject does not obligatorily raise. However, the EPP feature on T is strong, so some constituent must raise, which, combined with V-to-T raising, gives the pervasive V2 effect. As in Diesing Reference Diesing1990, we assume that Spec, TP can be an A-bar position. This proves a crucial assumption in section 5. With these components in mind, the structure of the Yiddish embedded declarative V2 can be sketched as in 2.Footnote ³

1. (2)

   

TP is the tense domain of a declarative, and the force of the clause is propositional (in what follows, this is represented by the feature [Force]). The topic phrases XP and YP can be a subject or any other constituent. The initial constituent can be unmarked (as is typical of subjects in the initial position) or a topic or focus (see Prince Reference Prince1999 for a detailed exposition of these possibilities). The verb raises to T in both the matrix and the embedded clause.

As mentioned above, embedded declarative V2 in Yiddish is quite unrestricted. More specifically, it is not confined to embedded root contexts (Hooper & Thompson Reference Hooper and Thompson1973, Heycock Reference Heycock, Everaert and Henk2017), nor is it constrained by assertion (Wiklund et al. Reference Wiklund, Bentzen, Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson and Hróarsdóttir2009) or pragmatically derived effects (Julien Reference Julien2015). Lexical approaches predict that V2 should be blocked when the complement is presupposed—when embedded under factive verbs (but see Julien Reference Julien2015), but this prediction is not borne out in Yiddish, where embedded V2 occurs quite freely with both nonfactive and factive verbs. The sentential negator nit invariably follows the tensed verb and precedes any nonfinite verbs in Yiddish (Zaretski Reference Zaretski1929; see also van der Auwera & Gybels 2014). It thus may serve as a signpost for verb movement to T (this holds for other languages as well, this fact forms a foundational point in the argumentation in Pollock Reference Pollock1989, as well as the analyses of V2 in Scandinavian languages discussed in Holmberg Reference Holmberg, Kiss and Alexiadou2015). However, with subject-initial V2, it is not clear whether or not any actual topicalization has taken place, beyond default subject raising (Vikner Reference Vikner1995:67). Thus, evidence for “full V2” must come from examples with nonsubjects in initial position (Santorini Reference Santorini1995).

1. (3)

   

Consistent with this lack of lexical restriction, V2 also occurs obligatorily in Yiddish in noncomplement clauses, such as topicalized clauses, as in 4, and adverbial clauses, as in 5. As noted above, these are among the cases where V2 is optional in Icelandic (Holmberg Reference Holmberg, Kiss and Alexiadou2015:357).

1. (4)

   

1. (5)

   

We now turn to embedded questions. As mentioned above, it has been observed in the literature that a distinction should be drawn between V2 clauses with an initial subject and those with a topicalized XP (Travis Reference Travis1984). The former occurs quite freely in all V2 languages, while the latter can be restricted, particularly in embedded contexts. Following Santorini Reference Santorini1995, we refer to the latter case as full V2. Yiddish allows full V2 in embedded questions (Diesing Reference Diesing1990):

1. (6)

   

Yiddish also allows full V2 in relative clauses, unlike even colloquial Afrikaans, another language with relatively unrestricted embedded V2 (Biberauer 2016), as shown in 7.

1. (7)

   

Thus, the data from Yiddish confirm the predictions made by Pereltsvaig’s parametric approach. Embedded V2 is quite pervasive, and it is found in a wide range of contexts not predicted by assertion-based or lexically-based accounts. The distribution of embedded declarative V2 in Yiddish is broader than that in Afrikaans, which also has a rather permissive V2 profile (Biberauer 2016), since even colloquial Afrikaans does not permit V2 in relative clauses.Footnote ⁴

3. Embedded Interrogatives

Embedded questions in Yiddish permit not only embedded topicalization as shown above, but also wh-inversion in certain contexts (Santorini Reference Santorini1995, Diesing & Santorini Reference Diesing, Santorini, Biberauer, Wolfe and Woods2020, contra Diesing Reference Diesing1990). That is, Yiddish can show V2 word order (resulting from T-to-C movement, with the finite verb immediately following the wh-phrase) in embedded interroga-tives as well as in matrix questions. The distribution of inversion in embedded interrogatives is not completely free. It is restricted in a manner similar to (but not identical to) that seen in other vernaculars (for example, Belfast English; Henry Reference Henry1995). Furthermore, for a number of speakers full V2 in these contexts is also marked, requiring discourse licensing (perhaps accounting for discrepancies in elicited judgments and the scarcity of naturally-occurring examples noted in Santorini’s 1995 corpus study).

Predicates that subcategorize for embedded questions fall into two major classes (an idea originating with Baker Reference Baker1970, and implemented in various ways in subsequent work, including that of McCloskey Reference McCloskey, Zanuttini, Campos, Herburger and Paul2006). Both subcategorize syntactically for wh-questions, but their complements are of different semantic types (Berman Reference Berman1991, among others). Comple-ments of the ask/wonder class are questions, while complements of the know/tell class are propositions. The distribution of inversion reflects this difference. In Irish English (Henry Reference Henry1995, McCloskey Reference McCloskey, Zanuttini, Campos, Herburger and Paul2006), inversion in embedded questions is restricted according to the class of the embedding verb—the ask/wonder class freely allows embedded inversion, while the know/tell class does not.

Interestingly, a similar pattern is seen in Yiddish embedded questions. Yiddish freely allows inversion with the ask/wonder class, as in 8a. Inversion is possible in any context that allows the complement to be interpreted as a true question. Such contexts include embedding under modals or negation, as in 8b (the examples are from Santorini Reference Santorini1995, 163b, 164a).Footnote ⁵

1. (8)

   

Additional examples show that T-to-C movement is also possible with interrogative complements of verbs such as hear and find out. Here, too, paraphrases are possible along the lines illustrated in 8b, where the original subordinate clause turns into a matrix question, and the original matrix clause turns into a parenthetical. The examples in 9 are from Santorini Reference Santorini1995, 168b–e.

1. (9)

   

The distribution of inversion in Yiddish is thus demonstrably broader than that in Irish English, which is subject to lexical restrictions. Inversion in embedded questions is possible beyond the ask/wonder class of verbs.

V2 embedded questions can also occur in noncomplement positions, such as the topic position of a matrix V2 sentence:

1. (10)

   

Thus, T-to-C movement in embedded questions clearly occurs in nonselected contexts. In other words, the pattern observed for wh-clauses is consistent with the generalization of McCloskey (Reference McCloskey, Zanuttini, Campos, Herburger and Paul2006), falling under the so-called Kayne-Rizzi-Roberts effect: T-to-C movement occurs in a CP that is not lexically selected at all (in a matrix clause, for instance, or in an adjunct clause or relative clause), or in a CP selected by a functional rather than by a lexical head.Footnote ⁶

The possibility of inversion in Irish English embedded questions correlates with the possibility of adverbial adjunction (McCloskey Reference McCloskey, Zanuttini, Campos, Herburger and Paul2006:18). Adjunction to embedded questions is most acceptable when inversion takes place, as shown by the contrast between 11 and 12.

1. (11)

   

1. (12)

   

Yiddish permits adjunction of a single adverbial in both declarative and interrogative clauses, resulting in V3 orders, as in 13.

1. (13)

   

While V3 order of this type is most common in root clauses, it also occurs in embedded declaratives, as in 14a (from Santorini Reference Santorini1995:234), and in interrogatives, as in 14b,c (from Diesing & Santorini Reference Diesing, Santorini, Biberauer, Wolfe and Woods2020, 35a,b). Native-speaker consultants accept examples such as 14, given the right discourse context.

1. (14)

   

The question then is: Is this case of adjunction constrained in a way comparable to that seen in the Irish English vernaculars? A closer look at the adjunction to embedded interrogatives in Yiddish reveals that both orders are judged acceptable, but significantly, they are not equivalent semantically. Example 14b is an indirect question, and 14c, with inversion, is a true (embedded) question. The indirect question option is judged more marked. Indeed, Hoge (Reference Hoge1999:218) reports such examples (like her 17b) as being unacceptable. Recall that in Irish English, Henry (Reference Henry1995) and McCloskey (Reference McCloskey, Zanuttini, Campos, Herburger and Paul2006) report that the acceptability of adjunction to embedded wh-clauses improves with inversion. The data presented here for Yiddish are thus consistent with this observation. The adjunction is most acceptable when T-to-C movement (inversion) has taken place.

Summarizing so far, V2 (including full V2) occurs quite freely in Yiddish embedded clauses. With embedded declarative clauses, there is no restriction to complements of assertions. Embedded V2 is also obligatory in adverbial clauses and embedded interrogatives (Diesing & Santorini Reference Diesing, Santorini, Biberauer, Wolfe and Woods2020). In particular, indirect questions (without inversion) allow both subject-initial V2 and nonsubject topics, the latter requiring special contexts. Inversion is allowed in embedded interrogatives, yielding a true question interpretation; this possibility is determined by the matrix verb (the ask/wonder class) or pragmatic context (negated, modal or interrogative matrix), similarly to Belfast English (Henry Reference Henry1995). Inversion in embedded interrogatives correlates with the possibility of adjunction of adverbials in embedded contexts (V3), again just as in the case of adjunction in Irish English (McCloskey Reference McCloskey, Zanuttini, Campos, Herburger and Paul2006).

McCloskey (Reference McCloskey, Zanuttini, Campos, Herburger and Paul2006) analyzes embedded inversion in Irish English in terms of CP recursion. Though we follow McCloskey in assuming that embedded interrogatives belong to two semantic types (true questions versus indirect questions), we do not adopt his CP recursion approach. Instead, we maintain the analysis of embedded interrogatives in Diesing Reference Diesing1990, Reference Diesing and Abraham2004, according to which they are nonrecursive CPs. Morpho-syntactically, the two types differ in interrogative force, which we represent featurally as [Force]. We further follow the analysis in Diesing & Santorini Reference Diesing, Santorini, Biberauer, Wolfe and Woods2020 and derive the variation in inversion and [Force] type through features in C. In particular, we assume that the embedded CP is headed by an abstract Q morpheme (Baker Reference Baker1970, Hagstrom Reference Hagstrom1998, Constant Reference Constant2014) selected by the governing verb. The [Force] feature in C determines the interrogative force. In indirect questions, [Force] is [-interrogative] and does not trigger inversion, yielding the representation in 15.

1. (15)

   

The possibility of full V2 in the embedded clause (that is, of YP being a nonsubject topic) depends on discourse conditions. For example, sentences of this type are most acceptable, and most frequent in corpora, when embedded under a matrix sentence with subject-initial V2 (Santorini Reference Santorini1995), as indicated in 15. These restrictions are discussed in more detail in Diesing & Santorini Reference Diesing, Santorini, Biberauer, Wolfe and Woods2020. In the case of embedded true questions, the [Force] feature is [+interrogative] and attracts the finite verb, resulting in inversion, as shown in 16.

1. (16)

   

The structures in 15 and 16 are thus able to represent the full range of embedded interrogatives without recourse to CP recursion. This is desirable, as previous work (such as Iatridou & Kroch Reference Iatridou and Kroch1992) shows no evidence for the additional structure induced by CP recursion.

4. Complementizerless V2

Embedded declaratives in Yiddish are typically introduced by a complementizer such as az ‘that’ or vos ‘that’ for nonfactive and factive complements, respectively. However, embedded V2 without a comple-mentizer is typically (but not exclusively) possible in contexts that typically allow embedded main clause phenomena, such as the declarative complements of verbs see, ask, or think (Heycock Reference Heycock, Everaert and Henk2017). While these complements resemble matrix clauses, they most often occur with subject topics (or a postposed subject with an expletive), and in this regard they resemble ordinary subordinate clauses with complementizers (Santorini Reference Santorini1995). Thus, they are V2 clauses, but full V2 (with a nonsubject topic) occurs only rarely (the examples in 17 are from Santorini Reference Santorini1995, 152a,b).Footnote ⁷

1. (17)

   

In contrast to the somewhat flexible lexical restrictions on the governing verb, there is a categorical restriction on complementizerless embedded clauses to complement position. Unlike their counterparts with a complementizer, they cannot appear in topic position:

1. (18)

   

Complementizerless adverbial clauses are likewise prohibited, in contrast to their counterparts with complementizers:

1. (19)

   

The restriction of complementizerless declaratives in Yiddish to complement position is similar to complementizer drop in English, as described in Pesetsky Reference Pesetsky1992 and Bošković & Lasnik Reference Bošković and Lasnik2003.Footnote ⁸ Pesetsky gives an account of the distribution of complementizerless clauses in English, which assumes the presence of an affixal null C. This null complementizer is licensed by associating with the embedding verb via adjacency. Bošković & Lasnik (Reference Bošković and Lasnik2003) refine this analysis by expressing the licensing condition in terms of Morphological Merger, requiring adjacency at PF. Failure of adjacency leads to ungrammaticality, which accounts not only for the restriction of complementizer drop to complement positions, but also for the pattern in 20.

1. (20)

   

While Yiddish requires complementizerless clauses to be in complement position, it does not require PF adjacency to the embedding verb. For example, the matrix main verb can be fronted to form a yes/no question:

1. (21)

   

These restrictions on complementizerless clauses leave one with (in principle, at least) two possibilities, as outlined in Santorini Reference Santorini1995: Complementizerless clauses in Yiddish have a null complementizer (but licensed in some way other than in English), or they have no complementizer, consisting only of the TP-level (root) V2 structure. If the latter, one might expect them to show properties of embedded main clauses (assuming Pereltsvaig’s TP-as-root-clause parameter). Consider-ing facts of distribution, the complementizerless clauses do commonly occur as complements of verbs such as see and think—that is, contexts that typically allow embedded main clauses. However, Santorini’s (1995) corpus study also demonstrates that complementizer-less clauses show properties typical of subordinate clauses; in particular, they do not exhibit a high frequency of full V2.Footnote ⁹ Thus, there is evidence that favors subordination. We therefore assume the presence of a null comple-mentizer, leaving the explanation of its distribution to future research. We turn next to the properties of embedded V2 and extraction.

5. Extraction and Embedded V2

Extraction facts provide further insight into the nature of C, both null and overt, in Yiddish. In addition to embedded questions, inversion can also occur with matrix extractions from embedded clauses (Diesing Reference Diesing1990). The grammaticality of inversion depends on whether or not the head in C is overt or silent. If the complementizer is overt, inversion is ungrammatical, as shown by the contrast between 22a and 22c. If the complementizer is silent, the converse is true, as shown by the contrast between 22b and 22d (see also Hoge Reference Hoge, Galina and Arnaudova2001).

1. (22)

   

Inversion can also ameliorate that-trace effects with subject extraction (Diesing Reference Diesing1990):

1. (23)

   

Another mitigating factor is the presence of a nonsubject in Spec (TP) (Diesing Reference Diesing1990:75), which licenses subject extraction (see Culicover Reference Culicover1993 for related discussion concerning subject extractions in English in the presence of clause-initial adverbials):

1. (24)

   

Thus, it is clear that the that-trace effect in Yiddish is not confined to subject extractions. It is rather a left edge effect associated with the embedded Spec (TP) position, or the highest specifier below C (Branigan Reference Branigan2005 draws a similar conclusion, noting that an account based on subject properties such as that of Pesetsky & Torrego 2001 cannot fully explain these data). As noted above, Erlewine (Reference Erlewine2020) characterizes violations of this sort in terms of the antilocality constraint in 1, repeated here as 25.

1. (25)

   

In other words, individual steps of phrasal movement cannot be too short. Erlewine (Reference Erlewine2020) focuses his survey on cases of subject extraction, demonstrating that his proposed constraint has considerable cross-linguistic applicability. In the discussion below, we present the details of its applicability to the Yiddish facts.

Turning now to the case of complementizerless embedded clauses, extraction from these sentences is blocked across the board (see also Hoge Reference Hoge, Galina and Arnaudova2001). Both, subject (26a) and object (26b,c) extractions from complementizerless embedded V2 yield ungrammaticality.

1. (26)

   

The left edge of the embedded complementizerless V2 clause (that is, the specifier of the CP headed by a null C) apparently cannot serve as an escape hatch (or phase edge).

Indeed, extraction is only possible from a complementizerless embedded clause when accompanied by inversion, as unambiguously shown by the contrast between 22b and 22d, where the wh-phrase has passed through the highest specifier of the embedded clause. Note that these cases are arguably embedded questions with inversion, as discussed in section 4, where the interrogative feature [Force] on the embedded C triggers the movement of the finite verb to C.

We represent the various extraction patterns discussed above in 27.

1. (27)

   

The case in 27a, where extraction takes place from the highest specifier below an overt C, clearly violates Erlewine’s antilocality constraint. The wh-phrase crosses only TP itself before landing in the lower Spec, CP, and the result is ungrammatical. In the second case, 27b, extraction of either a subject or an object from a position below a filled Spec (TP) position in a clause with an overt complementizer complies with antilocality. In either case of extraction (subject or object), the wh-phrase must cross the v/VP and the TP. Thus, a well-formed sentence results. The contrast between the configurations in 27a,b is similar to that noted in Rizzi Reference Rizzi2006 for the English sentences in 28.

1. (28)

   

Rizzi argues that the presence of the expletive in Spec, TP in 28b allows the subject to skip over that specifier, which makes extraction across the complementizer possible. As pointed out by Erlewine (Reference Erlewine2020), this analysis is naturally recast in terms of the Spec-to-Spec antilocality constraint.

In the third case in Yiddish, 27c, the extracted phrase moves from the left edge of CP, but in this case there is inversion, rather than a complementizer. The that-trace effect is inoperative, and the result is grammatical. Our claim is that this is a case of extraction from an embedded question with V2, which does not involve any antilocal step of movement. The wh-phrase moves from the embedded Spec, CP to the next phase edge (the embedding Spec, vP), and thereby obeys both minimality and antilocality.

The fourth case, 27d, involves extraction from a declarative with a null C. At first blush, this appears to be a situation in which the movement cannot comply with the antilocality constraint (see Douglas Reference Douglas2017) on the grounds that CP with a null C cannot be a landing site (see also Bošković & Lasnik Reference Bošković and Lasnik2003 on subject extraction from extraposed clauses in English). However, this explanation fails here, since both subject and object extraction yield ungrammaticality. Something else must be going on. Hoge (Reference Hoge, Galina and Arnaudova2001) suggests that the ill-formedness in these cases results from a minimality violation. Diesing (Reference Diesing1990, Reference Diesing and Abraham2004) argues that Spec, TP is a generalized topic position, and as such can (potentially) check A-bar features, and this could lead to an A-bar intervener, blocking movement.Footnote ¹⁰ However, in itself such an explanation would also predict cases such as those in 24b to be ungrammatical, contrary to fact.

Yet something akin to the minimality explanation seems to be the most promising way of explaining why both subject and object extraction are ruled out in 27d. What seems to be key here is the fact that the specifier of the CP headed by the null complementizer cannot be used as an intermediate landing site for any wh-phrase. The situation is different when C is filled by a finite verb. Diesing & Santorini (Reference Diesing, Santorini, Biberauer, Wolfe and Woods2020) attribute this contrast to the fact that when C is deleted (or null), C is no longer a phase head (see also Branigan Reference Branigan2016). Various complements of C can potentially be derived phase heads, but declarative T cannot. Thus, the specifier of a null C cannot serve as an escape hatch.Footnote ¹¹ This derives the observed minimality violation, while allowing extraction when an overt complementizer is present.Footnote ¹²

Summarizing this section, Yiddish exhibits both antilocality and minimality constraints in extractions from embedded clauses. The former are seen with both subject and object extractions from az-clauses (with a complementizer). In either case, extraction from the Topic position (Spec, TP) is banned. Conversely, both subject and object extraction from an internal position (below a filled Spec, TP) is possible from an az-clause. In contrast, complementizerless declaratives do not permit extraction, which we attribute to minimality. Extraction is permitted from embedded direct questions, as the extraction proceeds through the phase edge.