Head Movement in Bulgarian LHM and Germanic V2 #
Connects the Minimalist analysis of head movement to empirical verb position data.
Bulgarian Long Head Movement #
[Lam04] (cited in [HG19] examples (29), (48), (52)): both word orders are grammatical with the same meaning.
Order A (participle before auxiliary): Pročeli bjaha studentite statijata. read be.3p.pst the.students the.article 'The students had read the article.'
Order B (auxiliary before participle): Studentite bjaha pročeli statijata. the.students be.3p.pst read the.article 'The students had read the article.'
Germanic V2 #
models_root_v2: German root declaratives are V2 (consistent with V-to-C)models_embedded_verb_final: German embedded clauses are verb-final
Disputed: V-to-I in German embedded clauses #
[HG19] (§5.1.2) and [Wes09] (Table 3.1) make incompatible claims about whether the finite verb raises to I/T/Fin in German embedded finite clauses.
- [HG19], with [Hai10] as the
strongest contemporary German-internal anchor: V does NOT raise to
T in embedded non-V2 clauses — it "stays below adverbs/negation."
The only V-movement step in German is the V-to-C step in matrix
V2 contexts. (Quoted in
GermanicV2.lean.) - [Wes09]: German is +Fin° in Table 3.1. Combined with OV base order, +Fin° derives the verb-final embedded surface order via raising to Fin (rather than via the verb staying in V).
The empirical diagnostic — [Rob93]'s V-to-I diagnostic
kit — is the position of the embedded finite verb relative to
sentence adverbs (e.g. oft, wahrscheinlich) and negation. Both
analyses derive verb-final surface order; they disagree about whether
V crosses I on the way there. The codebase records Westergaard's
positive claim via German.german's .Fin membership;
[HG19]'s denial lives in prose ("no V-to-I"
is not a positive Lean witness), but the contradiction with
Westergaard is formalized as a refutation theorem below via the
westergaardToMovementParam projection.
German root declaratives are V2 — consistent with V-to-C head movement.
German embedded clauses are verb-final — no V-to-C in the presence of an overt complementizer.
The root-clause sentence from [Vik95].
[Wes09]'s positive claim: German embedded clauses
have V-to-I (= +Fin°). [HG19] disputes
this analytically (no V-to-I; verb stays in V). Re-exported from
Westergaard2009.fin_only_german so this file's H&G-vs-Westergaard
section has the witness in scope; the actual decide lives in
Westergaard2009. The H&G "no V-to-I" denial is encoded as a
refutation theorem below via the westergaardToMovementParam
projection.
Project [Wes09]'s V2 micro-parameter profile into
[Pol89]'s V-movement parameter: the +Fin°
micro-parameter (V-to-Fin / V-to-I) in the V2 profile corresponds
to .raises in VMovementParam; its absence corresponds to
.inSitu. Lets the otherwise-incompatible Westergaard and H&G
accounts contradict each other on a common Lean object.
Equations
Instances For
[HG19]'s prediction for German embedded finite clauses: V stays in V — no V-to-I, no V-to-T.
Instances For
[HG19] predicts .inSitu for German
embedded clauses; [Wes09]'s V2 profile, projected
via westergaardToMovementParam, predicts .raises. The two
frameworks make contradictory predictions about a single Lean
object — formalizing the long-standing Vikner-vs.-Haider /
Westergaard-vs.-H&G dispute about V-to-I in German.