Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-frp75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T09:59:53.769Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Old Spanish and the Split V2 hypothesis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2025

Ian Mackenzie*
Affiliation:
Newcastle University
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper uses Old Spanish as a case study to argue that verb-second (V2) syntax is not monolithic but instead involves a split between external merge (EM) and internal merge (IM) into the C-system. Building on Holmberg’s (2020) findings on Swedish, it demonstrates that the enclitic and proclitic patterns in Old Spanish finite main clauses serve as diagnostics for whether a V2 constituent reaches the preverbal field via EM or IM, reflecting a broader distinction between formal V2 and scope/discourse-related V2. The high frequency of enclisis in Old Spanish suggests a predominance of EM-driven V2, in contrast to Holmberg’s assessment of Swedish, where EM-driven V2 is claimed to be more restricted.

The paper proposes a mixed model of V2 syntax, integrating EPP-driven merge into Spec-FinP (Haegeman 1996) with interpretively motivated Criterial movement (Rizzi 2006; Samo 2019). Residual V2 reflects the resilience of the interpretive component, with its assumed Spec-head configuration (Poletto 2000) reinterpreting verb movement to Fin0 as movement to the Criterial head. The model provides a new perspective on the interplay between formal and interpretive aspects of V2 syntax, with implications reaching beyond Old Spanish.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press

1. Introduction

This paper advocates a ‘split’ generative model of V2 (or ‘verb-second’) syntax, distinguishing between external merge (EM) and internal merge (IM) into the C-system. Building on Holmberg’s (Reference Holmberg, Rebecca and Sam2020) analysis of Swedish – a strict V2 Germanic language – it examines data from Old Spanish, which, despite its relatively flexible left periphery, arguably reveals structural patterns that may be latent in stricter V2 languages.Footnote 1

Traditionally, analyses of Germanic V2 posit that the ‘V2 constituent’ – the element immediately preceding the finite verb – reaches its surface position via IM (Haegeman Reference Haegeman1996; Reference Haegeman2012; Roberts Reference Roberts and Luigi2004; Holmberg Reference Holmberg, Kiss and Alexiadou2015; Hsu Reference Hsu2017; Catasso Reference Catasso2024). However, Holmberg (Reference Holmberg, Rebecca and Sam2020) argues that certain constituents in Swedish, specifically ‘as-for’ phrases and adverbial clauses, can be externally merged directly into the V2 position. Supporting data (Holmberg Reference Holmberg, Rebecca and Sam2020: 47) are provided in examples (1) to (3), where (cognate with English so) appears as an optional element inserted immediately after a non-argumental V2 constituent.

The ungrammaticality of the reflexive possessive sina in (1) suggests that the V2 constituent vad hans hundar beträffar cannot originate from a TP-internal position and hence must have undergone EM into the C-system. Similarly, in (2), reconstructing the adverbial clause into TP results in a binding violation, as shown in (3), indicating that it too must have been externally merged into the left periphery.Footnote 2

EM into the V2 position is also robustly attested in Old Spanish, where finite pronominal enclisis serves as a primary surface diagnostic. Enclisis occurs in a subset of the contexts in which the Germanic languages display V2, but it is widely assumed to be incompatible with an internally merged preverbal field, which instead triggers proclisis (Fontana Reference Fontana1993; Rivero Reference Rivero1993; Benincà Reference Benincà, Zanuttini, Campos, Herburger and Portner2006; Mackenzie Reference Mackenzie2019). The basis for this assumption – both theoretical and empirical – is developed in detail in Section 2.3; for now, examples (4) and (5) illustrate the contrast. In (4), enclisis follows postulated EM of the adverb desi, a strongly clause-initial, non-argumental element. By contrast, (5) displays proclisis, since assi is an object complement and hence must have undergone internal merge from within the v*P domain.

According to Bouzouita (Reference Bouzouita, Cooper and Kempson2008: 238), enclisis accounts for 75% of finite cliticization in main clauses in thirteenth-century Spanish (N = 2026). Since enclisis is incompatible with IM, this prevalence indicates a dominant role for EM in Old Spanish V2 clauses containing clitics. Assuming similar behaviour in non-clitic contexts, V2 in Old Spanish must primarily involve EM, contrasting with Holmberg’s (Reference Holmberg, Rebecca and Sam2020) account of Swedish V2, which posits EM for just the two above-mentioned categories, viz. ‘as for’ phrases and adverbial clauses. However, while Holmberg (ibid. 60) concedes that EM of non-clausal adverbials into the V2 position cannot be ruled out on empirical grounds, robust evidence illustrating precisely that operation is readily available in Old Spanish. This suggests that the IM–EM distinction may be more pervasive in V2 systems than previously assumed. For Old Spanish specifically, it relates to a distinction that has received increasing attention in the literature: between scope- or discourse-driven V2, on the one hand, and more purely formal or EPP-driven V2, on the other. This contrast has been influential in recent work, but how best to capture it within the formal architecture of V2 syntax remains far from settled.

The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 spells out the split model of Old Spanish V2, explaining (in Subsection 2.3) why its two components correlate with enclisis and proclisis respectively. Section 3 summarizes IM-driven V2 patterns in Old Spanish. Section 4 examines EM-driven V2, drawing on enclisis and additional diagnostics. Section 5 looks in more detail at adverbial V2 structures. Section 6 discusses broader theoretical implications.Footnote 3

2. The Basic Model

2.1. Formal V2

Due to its V2 characteristics, Old Spanish is typically viewed as differing from modern Spanish in terms of the position of its inflectional licensing site. In the modern language, this site is analyzed as T0, whereas for medieval Spanish, a higher, C-related position is often proposed (Benincà Reference Benincà, Zanuttini, Campos, Herburger and Portner2006; Wolfe Reference Wolfe2015, Reference Wolfe2016a; Poole Reference Poole, Bailey and Sheehan2017). I assume this position to be Fin0, following Haegeman’s (Reference Haegeman1996) proposal that Fin0 in V2 languages has INFL-like properties. In this framework, the V2 constituent necessarily merges into Spec-FinP to satisfy an EPP condition on Fin0.Footnote 4 Like the classical EPP on T0, this condition is primarily formal and can be satisfied by an expletive if necessary (Roberts Reference Roberts and Luigi2004). Holmberg (Reference Holmberg, Rebecca and Sam2020) further demonstrates that the condition can be satisfied through either IM or EM, the latter correlating in Old Spanish with enclisis (see Section 2.3 for detailed motivation of this claim).

Thus the proposed analysis adopts Haegeman’s fundamental insight (Reference Haegeman1996: 144) that Fin0 in V2 languages is an Agree head, a C-related analogue of T0 in English-type languages. It therefore probes φ-features rather than Criterial ones, and hence cannot license topic, focus or quantificational readings, which are associated with higher Criterial projections in the left periphery. However, XPs externally merged into Spec-FinP are not semantically vacuous; while they do not convey discourse-related interpretations, their surface position can still contribute to clause-level meaning. In this respect, Fin resembles Rizzi’s Mod projection, which hosts constituents that are neither topics nor foci but are nonetheless ‘prominent’ – that is, interpreted as satisfying an EPP-related prominence requirement (Rizzi Reference Rizzi and Adriana2004: 242). On this view, merge into Spec-FinP plays a dual role: it satisfies a formal EPP requirement and simultaneously enables a constrained interpretive effect – pragmatically inert, but semantically contentful. Section 5 examines this interaction in the context of adverbial licensing in Old Spanish, though the same mechanism plausibly extends to all externally merged XP categories.

In languages lacking an EPP on Fin0 (e.g. Modern Spanish), such XPs are likely instead to be merged into higher left-peripheral projections like FrameP (Benincà and Poletto Reference Benincà, Poletto and Luigi2004), given that V2 effects such as subject–verb inversion are not enforced in such contexts. The contrast with Old Spanish confirms, therefore, that FinP can function as a default host for available, independently derived XPs – especially those not selected by the verb – whenever the EPP on Fin0 is active. This allows these constituents to participate in clause structure without altering its propositional core.

Under these assumptions, the earlier example (4) can be seen as being derived as in (6); that is, without IM of the V2 element:Footnote 5, Footnote 6

As implied by the above discussion (see also Section 5 below), the V2 constituent desi in the above example is unmarked in scope-discourse terms, reflecting a purely formal V2 structure characteristic of the medieval language. Batllori and Sitaridou (Reference Batllori and Sitaridou2020) argue that Old Spanish lacks formal movement into the C-system altogether, interpreting this as evidence against a V2 grammar. In contrast, the present analysis concludes that formal V2 in Old Spanish crucially involves external merge (EM) into Spec-FinP. Accordingly, given the proposed correlation between EM and enclisis, the typology of formal V2 constituents can be reconstructed from the distribution of enclisis. Table 1 presents this typology, along with the proportion of enclisis associated with each constituent type. This enclisis-based typology is exemplified, quantified and mapped to further diagnostics in Section 4. The data for Table 1 derive from an exhaustive analysis of finite enclisis in the thirteenth-century historical work General estoria I. Footnote 7 As Sitaridou (Reference Sitaridou2011) observes, this text is well-suited to reconstructing thirteenth-century Spanish syntax. Its copy date (1272) falls within the work’s composition window (1272–1284), suggesting that it faithfully reflects the original language. Moreover, its direct and relatively informal prose style enhances the likelihood that it captures authentic spoken usage.

Table 1. Enclisis in (non-imperative) finite main clauses (data from General estoria I, 1272; 535,516 words)

As in Germanic V2 (Holmberg Reference Holmberg, Kiss and Alexiadou2015: 353), a small minority (5.6%) of the enclitic clauses captured in Table 1 are V1. In these cases, EPP on Fin0 can be assumed to be satisfied covertly. For example, Fontana (Reference Fontana1993) and Wolfe (Reference Wolfe2015) analyze such cases as being instances of Narrative Inversion, which Holmberg (ibid.) suggests could involve a ‘covert temporal adverbial particle’ in initial position.Footnote 8

It is also striking that by far the most frequent V2 constituent in Table 1 is the coordinating conjunction, typically represented in the manuscripts by the Tironian et (here shown as the ampersand ‘&’). This differs from modern Germanic V2 languages, where a coordinating conjunction such as und ‘and’ cannot serve as the V2 constituent (Holmberg Reference Holmberg, Kiss and Alexiadou2015: 375). However, as Poletto (Reference Poletto, Batllori, Hernanz, Picallo and Roca2005: 227–234) shows for Old Italian e, clause-initial conjunctions in early Romance often functioned not as true coordinators but as expletive elements merged in the CP domain to satisfy a formal requirement. Diagnostics include their appearance clause-initially even when no coordination is present, their ability to introduce embedded infinitival and gerundial clauses, their frequent use after a full stop and the fact that they disappear in modern translations of the same texts. The distribution of Old Spanish ‘&’ conforms to this pattern and, within the Fin-based approach adopted here, it can be analyzed as an externally merged filler in Spec-FinP that satisfies the EPP on Fin0, rather than as a genuine coordinator. This view is consistent with Wolfe (Reference Wolfe2015: 135), who argues against the traditional treatment of Old Spanish et-initial clauses as V1 clauses.

Finally, it is worth noting that the preverbal elements listed in Table 1 can co-occur within the preverbal field, as illustrated in (7). In this example, a dislocated ‘subject’ (in bold) precedes an adverbial clause (in italics).Footnote 9 By definition, a dislocated ‘subject’ is not the syntactic subject but a DP coreferential with the null subject (see Villa García 2019, Barbosa Reference Barbosa2009). This arrangement closely resembles clitic left dislocation with a null clitic.

The adverbial clause in (7) is the V2 constituent and should be analyzed as undergoing EM into Spec-FinP, as per the paradigm in (6). The dislocated ‘subject’ occupies a higher, externally merged Spec, potentially inside the Frame field of Benincà & Poletto (Reference Benincà, Poletto and Luigi2004).Footnote 10 If such a dislocated ‘subject’ were the only preverbal element, however, it would have to merge into Spec-FinP to satisfy the EPP on Fin0. In that case, as shown in (31) below, enclisis arises, indicating that the XP does not undergo further movement. This confirms the observation made earlier in this subsection that both Fin and Frame can host externally merged constituents not implicated in the core propositional content of the clause. In non-V2 languages Spec-FinP may be bypassed altogether, but in V2 languages the EPP forces its activation.

2.2 Scope/discourse-related V2

In addition to the purely formal paradigm based on EM, as illustrated in (6), Old Spanish also exhibits structures where the V2 constituent undergoes IM into the C-system. This movement consistently correlates with a scope- or discourse-related interpretive effect. Many of these structures persist in the modern language as residual V2, retaining their interpretative function (see Leonetti & Escandell Vidal Reference Leonetti, Vidal, Dufter and Jacob2009, Jiménez Fernández Reference Jiménez Fernández2015). Examples (8) and (9) – the first from Old Spanish and the second from Modern Spanish – illustrate a well-documented instance of this phenomenon. Quer (Reference Quer, Beyssade, Bok-Bennema, Drijkoningen and Monachesi2002) refers to this as Quantificational QP-fronting and argues that the fronting operation imbues the QP with a ‘focus-affected’ reading in the sense of Herburger (Reference Herburger1997, Reference Herburger2000). In both examples, the fronted QPs are shown in bold.

Mackenzie & Wurff (Reference Mackenzie and van der Wurff2012) analyze Old Spanish examples similar to (8) in terms of a so-called Quant-Criterion – analogous to the traditional wh-Criterion – whereby a [+Quant] feature on C attracts a quantified object into its Spec. Reinterpreting their analysis within the framework of the Spec-head or Criterial Theory of V2 (Poletto Reference Poletto2000: 89; Samo Reference Samo2019), example (8) appears at first glance to involve the configuration shown in (10), where the [+Quant] feature is licensed in Rizzi’s Focus head, as per the licensing typology of Rizzi (Reference Rizzi and Adriana2004: 243).

However, this analysis is more appropriately applied to the residual V2 structure observed in (9), as the Spec–head paradigm cannot be fully generalized in Old Spanish. This limitation arises because the medieval language permits multiple A-bar movements, as demonstrated in (11), which displays a characteristic Spec–Spec–head linear sequence.Footnote 11 The two Specs are highlighted in bold and italics, respectively.

Here, the fronted object este ruego & esta razon is implicitly discourse-given and is thus naturally analyzed as occupying Spec-TopP (cf. Wolfe Reference Wolfe2015: 139), while the raised negative adverb nunca is appropriately placed in Spec-FocP, following the licensing typology proposed by Rizzi (Reference Rizzi and Adriana2004: 243). Under a Spec-head analysis, therefore, the structure would be as in (12):

The difficulty with this analysis is that the final position of the finite verb seems arbitrary. If it can raise to Foc0, then in principle it could just as well raise to Top0. One possible solution to this problem arises from the proposal in Samo (Reference Samo2022), according to which there is parametric variation as regards whether a given Criterial head triggers verb movement, but finite V always raises to the highest verb-movement–triggering head. Applied to (12), however, this would entail that in Old Spanish Top0 never triggers verb movement, while Foc0 consistently does – an asymmetry that is difficult to reconcile with the fact that both projections invariably show surface adjacency (ignoring clitics) between their specifier and finite V when they occur in isolation (see (8) above and (20) below). A more data-consistent assumption, therefore, is that Criterial heads in Old Spanish are uniformly inactive for verb movement: they attract phrasal constituents but do not serve as landing sites for the verb. On this view, the finite verb remains in Fin0, its inflectional licensing position, and its observed adjacency with the Criterial specifier reflects surface linearity rather than a Spec–head configuration.Footnote 12 Under this view, the QP-fronting in (8) can be analyzed as in (13):

This representation also takes into account the assumed merge requirement on Spec-FinP. Thus, while the Criterial head Foc0 attracts the QP directly from v*P, the EPP feature on the Agree head Fin0 (see Section 2.1) also attracts the same XP into Spec-FinP, where it receives a null spellout. In other words, in scope- or discourse-related V2 the initial XP participates in two separate chains: a Criterial chain and an Agree chain, much as who in English subject questions is simultaneously part of both an A-chain (to Spec-TP) and an A-bar chain (to Spec-CP) – see Chomsky (Reference Chomsky, Freidin, Otero and Zubizarreta2008: 149–150).Footnote 13 This dual-chain structure contrasts with purely formal V2, where the initial XP participates only in a single-membered Agree chain.

For the reasons that are advanced in Section 2.3, the dual chain structure triggers proclisis rather than enclisis, if a weak pronoun is present. This is exemplified in (14) below, which features a quantificationally fronted QP (in bold) and a proclitic pronoun (in italics).

In summary, Old Spanish V2 represents a composite of two distinct mechanisms: purely formal V2 and scope/discourse-related V2. Purely formal V2 targets Spec-FinP (an A-position in all but name) and exhibits default enclisis. In contrast, scope/discourse-related V2 targets higher, Criterial projections, such as Spec-FocP, and the cliticization pattern is proclisis rather than enclisis. This empirical duality mirrors the theoretical divide between the formal/FinP approach to V2 (Haegeman Reference Haegeman1996; Roberts Reference Roberts and Luigi2004) and the Spec-head/Criterial approach (Poletto Reference Poletto2000; Samo Reference Samo2019). The underlying data pattern is presented in greater detail in Sections 3, 4 and 5.

2.3. Enclisis as an EM diagnostic

A central claim of this paper is that the enclisis–proclisis alternation in Old Spanish finite main clauses reliably distinguishes between external merge (EM) and internal merge (IM) of the preverbal constituent. This correlation is not stipulated but derives from Shlonsky’s (Reference Shlonsky and Luigi2004) account of clitic placement, which in turn provides a theoretical foundation for Benincà’s (Reference Benincà, Zanuttini, Campos, Herburger and Portner2006) observation that proclisis in Old Romance reflects A-bar movement into a Criterial position. While Benincà identifies this position as Spec–FocP, the present analysis does not hinge on that specific label. Crucially, the proposed diagnostic is empirically robust: familiar A-bar constructions such as wh-movement and focus fronting consistently co-occur with proclisis and are categorically incompatible with enclisis, as confirmed by corpus data (see Section 2.3.2). This empirical asymmetry supports the conclusion that enclisis signals the absence of a Criterial chain and thereby serves as a diagnostic for EM into the preverbal field.

2.3.1. The core mechanism

Following Shlonsky (Reference Shlonsky and Luigi2004), I assume that enclisis represents the default cliticization pattern cross-linguistically, consisting in adjunction of the finite verb (VFIN) to the clitic within a designated functional head. On this view, proclisis is not (or not always) the structural inverse of enclisis but rather a cover term for a set of language-specific operations whose surface output places the clitic to the left of VFIN. These operations are triggered only when adjunction of VFIN to the clitic would cause a derivational crash. In this sense, proclisis functions as a repair mechanism – not a target output, but a derivational contingency that arises when the default enclitic configuration cannot be generated.

In Old Spanish, the most plausible analysis posits that cliticization (i.e. adjunction) occurs in Fin0 after the φ-features of VFIN have been valued. Accordingly, in structures that require no further feature checking – most notably those with an empty or externally merged preverbal field – enclisis is possible, hence obligatory. However, on Shlonsky’s (Reference Shlonsky and Luigi2004) view, adjunction of VFIN to the clitic creates a morphologically complex head whose features are too deeply embedded to be probed by a higher functional head. This renders A-bar configurations problematic for enclisis, as the Criterial head is assumed to attract both the fronted XP and a corresponding feature on VFIN – a feature that becomes inaccessible once adjunction has occurred, for the reason just outlined.

Notice that the derivation cannot be salvaged by reversing the sequencing of the derivational steps, given that adjunction in Fin0 is a strictly local operation and hence necessarily precedes the remote operation of feature checking by the higher, Criterial head. In such cases, therefore, proclisis emerges as a repair configuration, preserving the visibility of VFIN’s features to the higher head.

As for the derivation underlying proclisis, the most plausible analysis for Old Spanish is that the clitic raises above FinP, perhaps to a Spec position as the head of an otherwise empty XP. This prevents adjunction and preserves the visibility of VFIN’s features to any higher Criterial head. Empirical support for this looser structural relationship between the proclitic pronoun and the verb comes from the well-attested phenomenon of interpolation (see Mackenzie Reference Mackenzie2019: 108–115 and references cited there), whereby elements such as the negative adverb non – or, less frequently, the subject – can intervene between a preverbal clitic and its associated verb. While not conclusive in isolation, this pattern is consistent with an analysis in which proclisis does not involve head adjunction and thus permits intervening material.

2.3.2. Empirical support

The theoretical link between IM and proclisis is strongly corroborated by quantitative corpus evidence. In a 3.5-million-word sample from the Old Spanish Textual Archive (OSTA; Gago Jover and Pueyo Mena Reference Gago Jover and Mena2020),Footnote 14 automated searches identified 24,846 tokens of finite pronominal enclisis – but none occur in clauses containing familiar A-bar movement structures such as wh-movement or focus fronting.Footnote 15 Wh-movement, in particular, systematically co-occurs with proclisis, as illustrated by the bold and italicized elements in examples (15) and (16), with no enclitic counterparts attested.Footnote 16

A similar pattern is observed with focus fronting, a structure widely assumed to involve A-bar movement rather than EM into the left periphery.Footnote 17 Example (17) illustrates proclisis in this context in Old Spanish, with the focused constituent in bold and the relevant clitic in italics. The (contrastive) focal reading is reinforced by the negative coda & no en encubierto ‘and not in secret.’

Establishing that enclisis is incompatible with focus fronting is methodologically difficult, because focus is an interpretive feature that cannot easily be targeted by automated searches. However, no instances of finite enclisis were found in constructions where a cliticized finite verb is followed by a negative coda, as in (17), supporting the hypothesis that enclisis is systematically excluded in such contexts. This is consistent with Sitaridou’s (Reference Sitaridou2011: 173) observation that the focus–proclisis linkage in Old Spanish ‘enjoys global consensus’ and Benincà’s (Reference Benincà, Zanuttini, Campos, Herburger and Portner2006) view that enclisis in Old Romance is the reflex of an empty FocP.

Additional evidence linking A-bar movement to proclisis comes from cases of long-distance movement out of CP, a traditional hallmark of A-bar movement (Cinque Reference Cinque1990). Old Spanish manuscripts provide numerous examples where long movement co-occurs with proclisis on matrix verbs, as shown in (18) and (19), with the long-moved element in bold and the relevant clitic in italics.Footnote 18 By contrast, no instances of long movement co-occurring with enclisis on matrix verbs were found in OSTA, suggesting a fundamental incompatibility between long-distance movement and enclisis in Old Spanish.

In sum, the extensive textual evidence strongly supports the conclusion that A-bar movement chains are incompatible with finite pronominal enclisis in Old Spanish. This suggests that whenever enclisis appears in finite clauses, any specifiers in the C-system must be externally merged, reinforcing the validity of enclisis as a reliable diagnostic for identifying EM-driven structures.

3. IM-Driven V2 in Old Spanish

This section summarizes and exemplifies the well-known patterns of scope- and discourse-related V2 in Old Spanish, highlighting the mandatory use of proclisis in these structures (see Fontana Reference Fontana1993; Sitaridou Reference Sitaridou2011; Mackenzie & Wurff Reference Mackenzie and van der Wurff2012; Wolfe Reference Wolfe2015; Mackenzie Reference Mackenzie2019; Batllori & Sitaridou Reference Batllori and Sitaridou2020). Drawing on the 75%-to-25% enclisis-to-proclisis ratio reported by Bouzouita (Reference Bouzouita, Cooper and Kempson2008: 238; N = 2026) for the thirteenth century, IM-driven structures are estimated to account for approximately one-quarter of the V2 grammar’s output during that period.

The patterns comprising this output can be classified into five categories as follows:

  1. (i) Anaphoric fronting (also known as Resumptive preposing)

  2. (ii) Quantificational QP fronting

  3. (iii) Predicate fronting

  4. (iv) Adverb fronting

  5. (v) (Remnant) vP fronting

The first two categories generally target Spec-TopP and Spec-FocP, respectively, while the remaining three can target either projection depending on their interpretive properties. Mackenzie (Reference Mackenzie2019: 26–27) notes that patterns (i) to (iv) persist as residual V2 constructions in modern Spanish. Subsection 2.2 above provides detailed examples of category (ii), while examples of the other four categories are presented below, with the fronted element and the clitic highlighted in bold and italics, respectively.

Anaphoric fronting:

Predicate fronting:

Adverb fronting:

(Remnant) vP fronting:

Another empirical hallmark of these structures is that the fronted constituent can be extracted from an embedded CP, a standard diagnostic for A-bar movement (see Section 2.3.2). In the examples below, the extracted V2 constituent is highlighted in bold, and the CP from which it is extracted is italicized.

Anaphoric fronting:

Quantificational QP fronting:

Predicate fronting:

Adverb fronting:

(Remnant) vP fronting:

As the exemplification indicates, one component of the Old Spanish V2 system comprises a range of A-bar movement structures that target either Spec-TopP or Spec-FocP. The involvement of IM in these structures is evidenced by the obligatory use of proclisis when the finite verb is associated with a weak pronoun and by the extractability of the V2 constituent from an embedded CP. Additionally, similar to wh-fronting and focus fronting, nearly all of these movement structures persist as residual V2 in later stages of Spanish, highlighting the pragmatically marked or semantically driven nature of the movement operation. This contrasts sharply with the interpretatively inert structures of formal V2, where merge into the C-system serves a purely structural function – satisfying EPP on Fin0 – without additional interpretive content.

4. EM-Driven V2 in Old Spanish

This section explores the less well-studied pattern where the V2 constituent is externally merged directly into its surface position. Subsection 4.1 provides examples and quantitative estimates, while Subsections 4.24.4 discuss three additional diagnostics that complement the primary one based on enclisis. Subsection 4.5 concludes with a summary of the data.

4.1. Externally merged V2 constituents and their rates of occurrence

As outlined in Section 2.1, the typology of externally merged V2 constituents in Old Spanish is inferred from the distribution of enclisis. Table 1 in Section 2.1 defines this typology, identifying six categories of preverbal constituents, which are exemplified below (in bold) with enclitic pronouns (in italics). Table 2 provides estimates for the occurrence rates of these categories in the V2 position of main clauses in thirteenth-century Spanish. These estimates reflect the proportion of enclitic tokens for each category (as detailed in Table 1) and are adjusted using the 75%-to-25% enclisis-to-proclisis ratio reported by Bouzouita (Reference Bouzouita, Cooper and Kempson2008: 238, N = 2026) for main clauses of that period. This ratio serves as a proxy to distinguish formal V2 constructions (involving EM) from scope- or discourse-related V2 constructions (involving IM) in main clauses. Separate estimates are provided for ‘all main clauses’ and for ‘referential V2 clauses’, i.e. those in which the V2 position is occupied by an overt referential element (excluding both the covert adverb associated with Narrative Inversion and the conjunction marker).

Table 2. Externally merged V2 constituents: estimated occurrence rates in thirteenth-century Spanish

Coordinating conjunction:

Adverbial clause:

Dislocated argument:

Adverb:

Non-argumental PP:

Vocative expression:

4.2. Compatibility with recomplementation

As discussed in Section 2, enclisis serves as the primary diagnostic for external merge (EM) into the V2 position. Additional evidence comes from the correlation, first identified by Fontana (Reference Fontana1993), between a constituent’s ability to co-occur with pronominal enclisis and its capacity to appear in the recomplementation position, i.e. sandwiched between two iterations of the complementizer que at the beginning of an embedded clause. According to Shlonsky (Reference Shlonsky and Luigi2004: 344), the first que realizes the Force head, while the second realizes the Fin head. Villa García (Reference Villa García2019) further demonstrates that the second que imposes locality restrictions, blocking movement and preventing elements from crossing it. As a result, the intervening constituent must be externally merged, as internal merge (IM) would violate these locality constraints. Fontana (Reference Fontana1993: 163–169) had already observed this phenomenon, proposing – prior to Rizzi’s split CP hypothesis – that the element between the two instances of que is externally merged as the sister of CP.

The following examples illustrate recomplementation for each of the constituent types listed in Section 4.1 (with the relevant item shown in bold), excluding the coordinating conjunction and vocatives. The coordinating conjunction is excluded due to the requirement for the intervening element in the recomplementation structure to carry descriptive content, inherently ruling out expletive elements and Boolean operators. Vocatives, meanwhile, are confined to main clauses, whereas recomplementation is, by definition, an embedded structure.

Adverbial clause:

Dislocated argument:

Adverb:

Non-argumental PP:

A related phenomenon is the overt realization of a single complementizer in main clauses. As with the lower que in recomplementation, elements that other diagnostics suggest are externally merged into the left periphery appear before this overt complementizer, whereas items that undergo IM are spelled out to its right. Desi, the most frequent enclisis-triggering adverb (see Table 4 in Section 5), exemplifies the first case in (39), while the argumental PP de njnguno (‘of nobody’) in (40) illustrates the second.

Like the lower instance of que in recomplementation, the single que in (39) and (40) appears to impose a locality constraint, preventing IM across it. As a result, EM is the only mechanism that allows an item to be positioned in the preceding structural space.

4.3. Compatibility with V3

An additional empirical signature of EM-driven V2 in Old Spanish is that the V2 constituent can also occur in V3 structures, merged to the left of the V2 position (cf. Fontana Reference Fontana1993: 114). This matches Holmberg’s (Reference Holmberg, Rebecca and Sam2020) findings for Swedish, where ‘as-for’ phrases can be externally merged either into Spec-FinP as the V2 constituent or into a more peripheral outer topic position, preceding an alternative V2 constituent. Analogous findings are reported by Vance et al. (Reference Vance, Donaldson, Steiner, Colina, Olarrea and Carvalho2010) – albeit within an ostensibly movement-based approach – who show that in Old French and Old Occitan, fronted subordinate clauses play a central role in distinguishing V2 from V3 orders. Example (41) illustrates the V3 pattern for Swedish (where EM of the position 1 element is assumed):

Examples (42)–(44) illustrate the same pattern in Old Spanish, involving an adverb, a non-argumental PP and an adverbial clause, respectively. Each of these elements can be assumed to merge into a high clausal layer, such as the Frame field. In these examples, the V2 element arises through internal merge: Quantificational QP fronting in (42) and (43) and Adverb fronting in (44). Consequently, the cliticization pattern is proclisis rather than enclisis. Externally merged items are highlighted in bold, while internally merged ones are italicized.

The placement of the expressions in bold outside the V2 position highlights their syntactic independence from the rest of the clause. This is consistent with the assumption that these constituents are directly merged into the left periphery, rather than being derived through movement from within TP.

4.4. Incompatibility with long movement

A final piece of evidence for the EM-based analysis of enclisis-triggering preverbal elements comes from long movement, i.e. extraction from an embedded CP. The availability of such movement has long been recognized as a hallmark of A-bar dependencies (Cinque Reference Cinque1990), distinguishing operations driven by Criterial features (wh-movement, focus fronting, topicalization) from Agree- or EPP-related processes such as passivization and subject raising. Although this distinction is usually framed in terms of A-bar versus A-movement, the exclusion of long movement follows equally where no movement takes place. This helps explain the contrast in (45): while the wh-adverb when can be extracted from the embedded clause (45a), the non-wh adverb yesterday cannot (45b) – unless corrective focus or topicalization is applied, which upgrades it to an A-bar dependency.

This contrast makes the broader point that only elements capable of A-bar movement can undergo long extraction. It follows that items which resist extraction from an embedded CP cannot, when surfacing to the left of the finite verb, have reached that position by internal merge: if internal merge were an option for them in the matrix, it should be available uniformly across clause boundaries. The fact that, as shown in Section 2.3.2, long movement in Old Spanish is compatible only with proclisis and never with enclisis therefore further confirms that the preverbal items that trigger enclisis (listed in Section 4.1) are externally merged in their surface position, rather than raised from a lower position within the clause.Footnote 19

4.5. Data summary

Table 3 summarizes the key distinctions between externally and internally merged V2 elements, structured around the five core variables central to this paper’s analysis (further discussion of the ‘scope–discourse interpretive correlate’ variable is provided in Section 5 below).

Table 3. EM-driven V2 versus IM-driven V2

The most straightforward explanation for the contrasting data matrices in the table is a derivational one, based on whether the V2 constituent is externally or internally merged. Holmberg’s (Reference Holmberg, Rebecca and Sam2020) findings for Swedish make this unsurprising for adverbial clauses, which he recognizes can be externally merged into Spec-FinP. What is particularly striking, however, is that non-clausal adverbials – including both adverbs and non-argumental PPs – follow the same pattern.Footnote 20 In other words, they are genuine V2 constituents but consistently meet the diagnostics for EM. This outcome is not predicted by Holmberg’s approach, which, as he acknowledges (ibid. 60), is based on a priori reasoning rather than empirical evidence. In light of this, the next section considers non-clausal adverbial constituents in more detail.

5. Adverbial V2

Based on enclisis, the items listed in Table 4 are identified as the most frequently occurring externally merged V2 adverbs, accounting for 80.3% of the 233 adverb tokens documented in Table 1 (see Section 2.1). These adverbs meet all the EM diagnostics outlined in Section 4 and are pragmatically inert, functioning neither as topics nor foci. In particular, desi, the most frequent V2 adverb by a considerable margin, often exhibits a quasi-expletive quality akin to the use of English so in informal contexts (see (4) for exemplification).Footnote 21

Table 4. Most frequent enclisis-triggering adverbs and locutions (data from General estoria I, c. 1272)

Holmberg (Reference Holmberg, Kiss and Alexiadou2015: 372) notes that adverb-initial sentences are often ‘virtually identical in terms of semantics and pragmatics to their counterparts where the adverb is in post-V2 position.’ The items in Table 4 exemplify this observation. For instance, agora ‘now’ appears in the V2 position in (46) but is TP-internal in (47), with no discernible difference in interpretation.

A similar pragmatic inertness is observed in the related category of non-argumental PPs. These elements exhibit significant lexical diversity, making them less amenable to tabulation compared to individual adverbs. However, one generalization that can be made is that these PPs are never part of the main predication, serving instead to contextualize it. Reflecting their syntactic detachment, they are often followed in manuscripts by a semicolon or full stop, signalling an intonation break. This contrasts sharply with the A-bar moved constituents discussed in Section 3, which rarely show such punctuation. Representative examples involving enclisis (shown in italics) are given in (48)–(51), with the relevant PPs highlighted in bold.

Rizzi (Reference Rizzi and Adriana2004) argues that pragmatically inert left-peripheral adverbials undergo Internal Merge (IM) into Spec-ModP. However, the motivation for this movement is unclear, as these adverbials are, by definition, neither topics nor foci but simply ‘prominent’ (ibid. 239). While Rizzi does not explicitly define prominence, he links it to the ‘interpretive import’ of an EPP feature (ibid. 242). Given that Spec-FinP in V2 languages is already available as an EPP position, it seems more appropriate to analyze Old Spanish adverbials as merging into Spec-FinP rather than Spec-ModP. In this framework, Spec-FinP in Old Spanish assumes the role Rizzi attributes to Spec-ModP, eliminating the need to posit an additional projection.

As discussed in Section 4, most V2 adverbials in Old Spanish are merged externally rather than internally. The alternative argument, favouring internal over external merge, hinges on the assumption that the TP-internal hierarchy of adverbials must be preserved when adverbials appear in the left periphery – an effect taken to imply that such adverbials must have moved from within TP. Rizzi (Reference Rizzi and Adriana2004) and Samo (Reference Samo2022: 154) indeed interpret certain distributional patterns of adverbials as intervention effects, concluding that some adverbials must be internally merged due to locality constraints. However, both authors allow that adverbials may be externally merged into higher clausal layers under appropriate interpretive conditions. Samo (Reference Samo2019), in particular, suggests this is possible in elliptical structures, where the adverbial may originate from a higher, independently derived clause (see also Catasso Reference Catasso2021). The Old Spanish data discussed here suggest that adverbials can be externally merged directly into the V2 position without such ellipsis, while still participating in the adverbial hierarchy. This does not contradict Rizzi’s and Samo’s accounts, but rather expands the empirical picture, suggesting that under certain diachronic or typological conditions, the adverbial hierarchy may be established through external merge at the CP level. The present paper therefore adopts this broader scenario, grounded in the Old Spanish evidence.

6. Conclusions: Implications for V2 Typology

This paper has argued that V2 syntax in Old Spanish is a composite system integrating both formal V2 and scope/discourse-related V2. Formal V2, driven by external merge (EM), targets Spec-FinP, functioning similarly to an A-position. In this configuration, enclisis is the default, with the finite verb adjoining to the clitic. In contrast, scope/discourse-related V2, driven by internal merge (IM), targets Criterial projections such as FocP. The head–head feature attraction associated with Criterial movement blocks adjunction, resulting in proclisis.

The high frequency of enclisis in Old Spanish main clauses suggests that EM-driven V2 predominates in its syntax, ostensibly in contrast to Germanic V2 languages like Swedish, where IM is assumed to be the primary mechanism and EM is said to play a minimal role (Holmberg Reference Holmberg, Rebecca and Sam2020). The present paper suggests that this apparent discrepancy may reflect an underappreciation of EM’s role in adverbial V2, stemming from the absence of an equivalent diagnostic to enclisis in the Germanic languages. Without such a diagnostic, Holmberg (Reference Holmberg, Rebecca and Sam2020) falls back on an earliness principle according to which the fact that preverbal adverbials could originate in TP means they must do so. In contrast to this somewhat inconclusive argument, Old Spanish provides clear evidence that EM of adverbial elements into the V2 position is the norm rather than the exception. In the absence of counterevidence, there is no compelling reason to exclude a similar reliance on EM in Swedish or other V2 languages. Therefore, given the ubiquity of adverbial V2 in fully developed V2 systems, the proposed derivational split between EM-driven and IM-driven V2 could be an essential feature of V2 typology.

The approach advanced in this paper dovetails with the traditional distinction between generalized (full) V2 and residual V2. Generalized V2 often lacks an interpretive correlate (Holmberg Reference Holmberg, Kiss and Alexiadou2015: 371–372), while residual V2 consistently carries semantic or pragmatic significance, as evidenced in modern English (Sailor Reference Sailor, Rebecca and Sam2020), Spanish (Leonetti & Escandell Vidal Reference Leonetti, Vidal, Dufter and Jacob2009) and Italian (Cinque Reference Cinque1990). Within the split V2 model proposed here, residual V2 arises from the persistence of the scope/discourse component after the formal, EPP-driven component has been lost. Such residual V2 is realized through a Spec-head configuration (Poletto Reference Poletto2000; Samo Reference Samo2019), which, in the proposed framework, is interpreted as a structural reanalysis triggered by the parametric loss of generalized T-to-Fin movement.

For Spanish, this loss can perhaps be dated to the fifteenth century, when finite enclisis entered its terminal decline (Bouzouita Reference Bouzouita, Cooper and Kempson2008: 240).Footnote 23 From that point onwards, new generations of speakers were compelled to reinterpret pre-existing V2 word order in the primary linguistic data using mechanisms compatible with a non-V2 grammar. One such mechanism is finite verb movement to the Criterial head, delivering Criterial adjacency (Samo Reference Samo2022), which does not in principle require an underlying V2 grammar. The availability of this mechanism ensured the survival of the majority of the phenomena discussed in Section 3, in which the V2 word order was interpretively motivated. In contrast, where the old V2 order was purely formal, lacking any interpretive correlate, the relevant patterns could not be sustained in the post-V2 grammar. As a result, formal manifestations of the medieval V2 system – those involving the conjunction marker, adverbial clauses, dislocated DPs or specific classes of adverbials – gradually disappeared.Footnote 24

Future research should undertake cross-linguistic comparisons between Old Spanish and other Romance and non-Romance V2 languages to assess whether EM-driven V2 operates in similar ways across languages or constitutes a unique feature of Old Spanish’s historical syntax. Re-examining the role of adverbial elements in other V2 languages could further clarify the scope of the EM–IM derivational split identified here in Old Spanish.

Old Spanish Manuscripts Cited

Espéculo (BNE MSS/10123), Estoria de España I (Escorial Y-I-2), Estoria de España II (Escorial X-I-4), Fazienda de Ultramar (Salamanca: Biblioteca Universitaria 1997), General estoria I (BNE MSS/816), General estoria II (BNE MSS/10237), General estoria IV (Vaticana Urb. Lat. 539), General estoria V (Esc. I-I-2), Lapidario (Escorial h-I-15), Libro de las leyes (BL Add. 20787), Libros del saber de astronomía (Madrid: Biblioteca Universitaria Complutense, BH MSS 156), Poridat de las poridades (Escorial L-III-2).

Rights Retention Statement

For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions, which have greatly improved the clarity and scope of this paper. Any remaining errors are my own.

Competing Interests

The author declares none.

Footnotes

1 Notwithstanding the position adopted here, the typological status of Old Spanish has traditionally been a subject of debate. While this paper, along with Fontana (Reference Fontana1993), Poole (Reference Poole2013, Reference Poole, Bailey and Sheehan2017) and Wolfe (Reference Wolfe2015, Reference Wolfe2016a), supports its classification as a V2 language, others, including Rivero (Reference Rivero1993), Sitaridou (Reference Sitaridou, Breitbarth, Bouzouita, Danckaert and Farasyn2019) and Batllori and Sitaridou (Reference Batllori and Sitaridou2020), argue against this view.

2 Holmberg (Reference Holmberg, Rebecca and Sam2020: 60) treats Swedish as representative of Germanic V2 as a whole, raising the question of whether the patterns he identifies can be generalized to other Germanic languages. Adverbial clauses appear capable of functioning as V2 constituents in most, if not all, Germanic V2 languages (Holmberg Reference Holmberg, Kiss and Alexiadou2015: 348). Moreover, the binding violation highlighted by Holmberg has cross-linguistic import, extending even to non-V2 languages like English, as illustrated in the gloss for (3).

The case of ‘as for’ phrases is more complex. Danish unsurprisingly patterns with Swedish, as seen in example (i), while German examples like (ii) show that such phrases can occupy the V2 position in that language as well. Conversely, the obligatory V3 order in Dutch examples such as (iii) suggests that equivalent phrases in Dutch cannot function as V2 constituents.

An anonymous reviewer suggests that Holmberg’s Swedish data might involve merge into a higher structural layer, potentially with ellipsis, as proposed by Samo (Reference Samo2019: 146–158) for Case Hanging Topics in German. However, as shown in (iv), such hanging topics cannot occupy the V2 position in German, distinguishing them from Holmberg’s elements.

3 With the exception of examples (28) and (37), which are drawn from fourteenth-century copies, all Old Spanish examples and quantitative data cited in this paper are based on thirteenth-century manuscripts. The linguistic examples come from a variety of prose text types, including narrative, legal and didactic/scientific works. The language exhibits remarkable consistency across these manuscripts, offering a reliable representation of the syntax of the period. Codex details for the cited examples are provided at the end of the paper. The fine-grained quantitative analysis of the preverbal field in enclitic structures, referenced in Subsections 2.1 and 4.1, is based on the General estoria I manuscript (c. 1272; 535,516 words). In contrast, the coarser-grained data cited in Subsection 2.3.2 are drawn from the thirteenth-century portion of the Old Spanish Textual Archive (OSTA) (see Footnote note 14).

4 Relatedly, the V2 constituent or its null copy in Spec-FinP is widely assumed to create a barrier to further movement into the C-system, known as the Bottleneck (see e.g. Catasso Reference Catasso2024). However, Samo (Reference Samo2019, 2020) calls this assumption into question on theoretical grounds and, as mentioned in Footnote note 11, a strict Bottleneck is difficult to motivate empirically in Old Spanish.

5 Wolfe (Reference Wolfe2015, Reference Wolfe2016a) argues that the V2 constituent and finite V in Old Spanish raise ultimately to Spec-ForceP and Force0, respectively. However, that approach is not directly compatible with the explanation for the enclisis–proclisis alternation advanced in 2.3.1, which implicitly requires finite V in EM-driven V2 not to be attracted by a head merged above Fin0.

6 The postverbal subject in Old Spanish V2 structures can potentially be analyzed as occupying a position in the v*P periphery, rather than Spec-TP (cf. Belletti Reference Belletti and Luigi2004), in line with the language’s null subject properties (see Wolfe Reference Wolfe2015: 137, note 7, who observes that 49.69% of Old Spanish matrix clauses feature null subjects). Example (6) in the main text may illustrate such a low subject position, given the subject’s placement to the right of the adverb assi.

Relatedly, a reviewer suggests that in cases where the postverbal subject was analyzed as structurally high, it might be expected to block A-bar movement to the left periphery through intervention. According to Chomsky (Reference Chomsky, Freidin, Otero and Zubizarreta2008: 152), however, high subjects are attracted by T’s Agree feature, whereas fronted XPs are attracted by C’s Edge feature (interpreted here as shorthand for any of Rizzi’s Criterial features). If this is correct, a postverbal subject ought not to block movement of another XP into the left periphery, given that intervention effects arise only when two goals compete for the same probe. Consistent with this prediction, no evidence of relevant intervention effects is attested in the Old Spanish data: clauses with fronted XPs and proclisis freely allow postverbal subjects.

7 Imperatives are excluded from the survey as they occur disproportionately in V1 clauses and hence would be liable to skew the data towards that specific context.

8 Wolfe (Reference Wolfe2015: 142) links the relative availability of V1 in Old Spanish to the proposal that the language was a Force-V2 language. For the reason given in Footnote note 5, however, that approach is not adopted here.

9 Dislocated ‘subjects’, as illustrated in example (7), are aggregated with dislocated ‘objects’ in Table 1, both being DPs that are coreferential with a syntactic argument and correlate with enclisis. In the case of dislocated ‘objects’ any accompanying enclitic pronoun, if it is accusative in case, is necessarily resumptive (interpreted here as clitic left dislocation, though see Bouzouita Reference Bouzouita, Dufter and de Toledo2014 for potential indeterminacy vis-à-vis left dislocation). In contrast, proclisis with left-peripheral object DPs (or the simple absence of clitic resumption) diagnoses A-bar movement, as seen in examples (14) and (20), where the clitics are non-resumptive with respect to the fronted object. Although the issue is beyond the scope of the paper, these data implicitly support an EM analysis of CLLD rather than a movement-based one, as proposed, for example, by Lee (Reference Lee2016). Regarding diagnostics for EM in DPs analyzed as dislocated (‘subjects’ or ‘objects’), the key markers are enclisis (example (31)) and the additional criteria outlined in Subsections 4.2 to 4.4: compatibility with recomplementation (e.g. Calixto in example (36)), the ability to function as the initial element in a V3 structure (example (7)) and incompatibility with long movement.

10 In the analysis of Fontana (Reference Fontana1993), all enclisis-selecting preverbal elements – in other words, all the constituent types listed in Table 1 – are externally merged outside the core CP. Given the strong preponderance of enclisis in main clauses, this would imply that the majority of such clauses were structurally V1 clauses rather than V2 clauses. This is not impossible theoretically, especially given the likely VSO order of early Old Spanish and of proto-Romance more generally (see Bossong Reference Bossong, Alconchel and de Bustos Tovar2006 for Old Spanish; Dardel Reference Dardel1996, Salvi Reference Salvi2004, Wolfe Reference Wolfe2016b and Ledgeway Reference Ledgeway2017 for proto-Romance). There would, however, be a certain tension with Fontana’s leading claim, namely that Old Spanish was a V2 language. Mackenzie (Reference Mackenzie2019) addresses this tension by distinguishing between true V2 and accidental or fortuitous V2, the latter corresponding to the enclitic structure discussed here. In light of the findings in Holmberg (Reference Holmberg, Rebecca and Sam2020), Mackenzie’s ‘accidental V2’ is more appropriately analyzed as EM-driven (true) V2.

11 Both specifier positions are filled by IM, given that object fronting and negative fronting consistently correlate with proclisis. Therefore, examples like (11) suggest that Old Spanish did not exhibit a strict Bottleneck effect. Instead, constraints on movement to the left periphery in Old Spanish seem to reflect featural relativized minimality (Rizzi Reference Rizzi and Adriana2004), as proposed by Samo (Reference Samo2019, Reference Samo2022) for V2 structures more generally. From that perspective, (11) is possible because the two fronted constituents are licensed by features from distinct classes – one being a topic and the other a negative quantifier.

12 An alternative analysis of the multiple preverbal Specs in (12) would be to treat Old Spanish Topic on a par with Samo’s (Reference Samo2022) Mod in V3-permitting Romansh varieties (see also Samo Reference Samo2019 on Kashmiri Topic), namely as an active criterial head that licenses a topical XP but does not itself trigger verb movement. This would yield a straightforward Criterial-style account of the observed word order. As noted in the text, however, such an approach leaves unexplained the fact that both Topic and Focus in Old Spanish invariably appear adjacent to the finite verb when they occur in isolation. Moreover, the particular V3 order predicted by this analysis for Romansh, viz. XP–subject–verb (Samo Reference Samo2022: 158), is unattested in Old Spanish under Criterial movement to Spec-TopP: subject–verb inversion is consistently required, whether there is single or multiple A-bar movement (see (20), for example). For these reasons I do not pursue the Romansh/Kashmiri type of analysis here, although it remains a logically coherent alternative.

13 Chomsky (Reference Chomsky, Freidin, Otero and Zubizarreta2008: 149–150) argues that who in English subject question participates simultaneously in an A-chain, formed by attraction to Spec-TP via φ-Agree, and an A-bar chain, formed by attraction to Spec-CP via an Edge Feature. Only the A-bar chain surfaces with a pronounced copy, owing to ‘the usual demand of minimal computation’ (Chomsky Reference Chomsky, Freidin, Otero and Zubizarreta2008: 150). The Old Spanish case in (13) is directly analogous: the initial XP participates both in an Agree chain (via Fin0) and a Criterial chain (via Foc0). More generally, whenever an initial XP has undergone IM for topic or focus/quantificational licensing, it simultaneously participates in two chains – an Agree chain headed by a silent copy in Spec-FinP, and a Criterial chain headed by a pronounced copy in the relevant Criterial Spec.

14 OSTA provides semi-palaeographic transcriptions of all major literary, historical, legal and scientific works written in Old Spanish. The subcorpus used for this study comprises the entirety of OSTA’s thirteenth-century section, which includes 31 manuscripts containing 52 Old Spanish texts and totalling approximately 3.5 million words. While the texts are too numerous to list here, they can be identified through OSTA’s Tabla códices (codex directory) and Tabla obras (text directory), accessible at the two URLs below: https://nextcloud.oldspanishtextualarchive.org/index.php/apps/onlyoffice/s/M8tSrmtjopeEcJS

https://nextcloud.oldspanishtextualarchive.org/index.php/apps/onlyoffice/s/cjyee9FqPE55PQQ

15 Full search protocols, query strings and replication instructions for the corpus results reported in this section of the paper are available in a public OSF repository: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/RYKFN.

16 The same appears to be true in those modern Ibero-Romance languages, such as Portuguese and Asturian, which retain finite enclisis – see Shlonsky (Reference Shlonsky and Luigi2004).

17 In the terminology of Bianchi et al. (Reference Bianchi, Bocci, Cruschina, Aboh, Schaeffer and Sleeman2015) – see also Jiménez Fernández (Reference Jiménez Fernández2015) – fronted foci in Old Spanish are typically associated with either contrastive or mirative readings. Sitaridou (Reference Sitaridou2011) argues that fronted foci in Old Spanish may also encode new-information focus. However, as Mackenzie (Reference Mackenzie2019: 53–56) suggests, some of the examples cited by Sitaridou could alternatively be interpreted as instances of what he terms ‘affective focus’ (cf. Hernanz Reference Hernanz2001), which corresponds to mirative focus in the framework of Bianchi et al. In general, as in the modern standard language, new-information focus in Old Spanish tends to appear in clause-final position, where the relevant DP naturally receives the nuclear stress (Zubizarreta Reference Zubizarreta1998). This is exemplified by los nuestros sanctos in (i):

The verbal action referenced in the embedded clause has already been mentioned or implied in the preceding discourse, as indicated by the anaphoric pronoun lo. Therefore, the new information is supplied by the embedded subject los nuestros sanctos. In the framework of Belletti (Reference Belletti1999, Reference Belletti and Luigi2004), the latter element occupies a low (v*P-internal) focus position.

18 The plural agreement manifested by the matrix verb semeian in (19) is presumably an error on the part of the copyist, given that A-movement of the (null) subject from semeian’s finite complement – a full CP – would be impossible under standard assumptions. The extraction of the adjective sanos from the same complement is of course unproblematic, given that this involves A-bar movement rather than A-movement.

19 This refers to the occurrence of such items in pragmatically neutral utterances. As noted in the text, focus – being attracted by a Criterial head – can rescue an otherwise unviable A-bar chain. Accordingly, an element that typically triggers enclisis (and is therefore externally merged in neutral contexts) could, if assigned focus, surface instead as a proclisis-selecting, A-bar–moved element.

20 In the present paper, the term ‘adverbial’ (used as a noun) should be understood as referring collectively to adverbs, adverbial locutions and non-argumental PPs.

21 In this respect, it resembles the Old Italo-Romance V2 particle si, which Poletto (Reference Poletto, Batllori, Hernanz, Picallo and Roca2005) analyses as an expletive and Wolfe (Reference Wolfe2021: 241) suggests may be externally merged in Old Venetian and Old Piedmontese. In Poletto’s analysis, the expletive si merges into Spec-FocP. If this merge operation establishes a Criterial configuration, it could account for why si appears to trigger proclisis (ibid. 226) rather than enclisis.

22 The turned ampersand represents a capital Tironian et.

23 T-to-Fin movement and finite enclisis correspond in principle to different parameters. However, both are characteristic of the medieval language and their joint disappearance heralds in part the emergence of the modern variety, perhaps illustrating the notion of ‘cascading parameter changes’ advanced by Roberts (Reference Roberts2007: 351).

24 See Foulet (Reference Foulet1921: 346) for an implicitly functionalist take on this approach. See Wolfe (Reference Wolfe2022, Reference Wolfe2024) for an analysis of the process in terms of a shift from maximally general operations to more specialized ones.

References

Barbosa, Pilar. 2009. Two kinds of subject pro. Studia Linguistica 63(1), 258.10.1111/j.1467-9582.2008.01153.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batllori, Montserrat & Sitaridou, Ioanna. 2020. Fronting in Old Spanish. Glossa 5(1), art. 61. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.893Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana. 1999. Inversion as focalization and related questions. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics. 7. 945.Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana. 2004. ‘Aspects of the Low IP area.’ In Luigi, Rizzi (ed.), The structure of CP and IP: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 2, 1651. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195159486.003.0002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benincà, Paola. 2006. A detailed map of the left periphery in medieval Romance. In Zanuttini, Raffaella, Campos, Héctor, Herburger, Elena & Portner, Paul H. (eds.), Crosslinguistic research in syntax and semantics: Negation, tense and clausal architecture, 5386. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Benincà, Paola & Poletto, Cecilia. 2004. Topic, focus and V2: defining the sublayers. In Luigi, Rizzi (ed.), The structure of CP and IP: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 2, 5275. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina, Bocci, Giuliano & Cruschina, Silvio. 2015. Focus fronting and its implicatures. In Aboh, Enoch O., Schaeffer, Jeannette & Sleeman, Petra (eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2013: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ Amsterdam 2013, 120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 2006. La sintaxis de las Glosas Emilianenses en una perspectiva tipológica. In Alconchel, José Luis Girón & de Bustos Tovar, José Jesús (eds.) Actas del VI Congreso Internacional de Historia de la Lengua Española (Madrid, septiembre 2003), vol. 1, 529544. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
Bouzouita, Miriam. 2008. At the syntax-pragmatics interface: clitics in the history of Spanish. In Cooper, Robin & Kempson, Ruth (eds.), Language in flux: Dialogue coordination, language variation, change and evolution, 221263. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
Bouzouita, Miriam. 2014. Left dislocation phenomena in Old Spanish: an examination of their structural properties. In Dufter, Andreas & de Toledo, Álvaro Octavio (eds.), Left sentence peripheries in Spanish: Diachronic, variationist and typological perspectives, 2352. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.214.04bouCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Catasso, Nicholas. 2021 How large is the left periphery of Present-Day German? A unifying approach to multiply-filled-prefield configurations. Open Linguistics 7(1), 760801. https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2020-0177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Catasso, Nicholas. 2024. A Cartographic approach to verb movement and two types of FinP V2 in German. Languages 9(1), art. 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9010021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Freidin, Robert, Otero, Carlos P. & Zubizarreta, María Luisa (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 291321. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990. Types of Ā-Dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dardel, Robert de. 1996. A la recherche du protoroman. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110930986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fontana, Josep. 1993. Phrase structure and the syntax of clitics in the history of Spanish. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Foulet, Lucien. 1921. Comment ont évolué les formes de l’interrogation. Romania 47, 186-187: 243348.Google Scholar
Gago Jover, Francisco & Mena, F. Javier Pueyo. 2020. Old Spanish Textual Archive. Hispanic Seminary of Medieval Studies. http://osta.oldspanishtextualarchive.org.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1996. Verb Second, the split CP and null subjects in early Dutch finite clauses. Geneva Generative Papers 4, 133175.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2012. Adverbial clauses, main clause phenomena and composition of the left periphery. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199858774.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herburger, Elena. 1997. Focus and weak noun phrases. Natural Language Semantics 5(1), 5378.10.1023/A:1008222204053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herburger, Elena. 2000. What counts: focus and quantification. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/7201.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernanz, Maria-Lluïsa (2001). ¡En bonito lío me he metido!: Notas sobre la afectividad en español. Moenia 7, 93109.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2015. Verb Second. In Kiss, Tibor and Alexiadou, Artemis (eds.) Syntax – theory and analysis: An international handbook, vol. 1, 342383. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter (e-book).Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2020. On the bottleneck hypothesis of Verb Second in Swedish. In Rebecca, Woods & Sam, Wolfe (eds.), Rethinking Verb Second, 4160. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198844303.003.0003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsu, Brian. 2017. Verb second and its deviations: an argument for feature scattering in the left periphery. Glossa 2(1), art. 35. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.132Google Scholar
Jiménez Fernández, Ángel. 2015. Towards a typology of focus: subject position and microvariation at the discourse–syntax interface. Ampersand 2, 4960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2015.03.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam. 2017. Late Latin Verb Second: The sentential word order of the Itinerarium Egeriae. Catalan Journal of Linguistics (special issue: Generative approaches to Latin syntax), 163216.10.5565/rev/catjl.212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Man-ki. 2016. Spanish clitic left dislocation as a non-quantificational A-bar movement. Language Research 52(2), 283310.Google Scholar
Leonetti, Manuel & Vidal, Victoria Escandell. 2009. Fronting and verum focus in Spanish. In Dufter, Andreas & Jacob, Daniel (eds.), Focus and background in Romance languages, 155204. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.112.07leoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackenzie, Ian. 2019. Language structure, variation and change: The case of Old Spanish syntax. Cham: Springer.10.1007/978-3-030-10567-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackenzie, Ian & van der Wurff, Wim. 2012. Relic syntax in Middle English and Medieval Spanish: Parameter interaction in language change. Language 88(4), 846876.10.1353/lan.2012.0084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poletto, Cecilia. 2000. The higher functional field: Evidence from Northern Italian dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195133561.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poletto, Cecilia, 2005. Si and E as CP expletives in Old Italian. In Batllori, Montserrat, Hernanz, Maria-Lluïsa, Picallo, Carme & Roca, Francesc (eds.), Grammaticalization and parametric variation, 206235. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199272129.003.0013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Geoffrey. 2013. Interpolation, verb-second and the low left periphery in Old Spanish. Iberia 5(1), 6998.Google Scholar
Poole, Geoffrey. 2017. Feature inheritance in Old Spanish: (re)visiting V2. In Bailey, Laura R. & Sheehan, Michelle (eds.), Order and structure in syntax I: Word order and syntactic structure, 4968. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Quer, Josep. 2002. Edging quantifiers: on QP-fronting in Western Romance. In Beyssade, Claire, Bok-Bennema, Reineke, Drijkoningen, Frank & Monachesi, Paola (eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2000: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ 2000, Utrecht, 30 November–2 December, 253270. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.232.14queCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivero, María Luisa. 1993. Long head movement versus V2, and null subjects in Old Romance. Lingua 89, 217245.10.1016/0024-3841(93)90053-YCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2004. Locality and Left Periphery. In Adriana, Belletti (ed.), Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 3, 223251. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195171976.003.0008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2006. On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP Effects. In Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen & Corver, Norbert (eds.), Wh movement: Moving on, 97134. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 2004. The C-system in Brythonic Celtic languages, V2 and the EPP. In Luigi, Rizzi (ed.), The structure of CP and IP: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 2, 297327. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195159486.003.0010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 2007. Diachronic syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sailor, Craig. 2020. Rethinking ‘residual’ Verb Second. In Rebecca, Woods & Sam, Wolfe (eds.), Rethinking Verb Second, 126149. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198844303.003.0006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salvi, Giampaolo. 2004. La formazione della struttura di frase romanza: Ordine delle parole e clitici dal latino alle lingue romanze antiche. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.10.1515/9783110945508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samo, Giuseppe. 2019. A Criterial approach to the cartography of V2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samo, Giuseppe. 2022. Criterial V2: ModP as a locus of microvariation in Swiss Romansh varieties. Probus 34(1), 143170.10.1515/probus-2022-0007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shlonsky, Ur. 2004. Enclisis and proclisis. In Luigi, Rizzi (ed.), The structure of CP and IP: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 2, 329353. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195159486.003.0011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sitaridou, Ioanna. 2011. Word order and information structure in Old Spanish. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 10, 159–84.10.5565/rev/catjl.36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sitaridou, Ioanna. 2019. Against V2 in Old Spanish. In Breitbarth, Anne, Bouzouita, Miriam, Danckaert, Lieven & Farasyn, Melissa (eds), The Determinants of diachronic stability, 131156. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/la.254.06sitCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vance, Barbara, Donaldson, Bryan & Steiner, B. Devan. 2010. V2 loss in Old French and Old Occitan: the role of fronted clauses. In Colina, Sonia, Olarrea, Antxon & Carvalho, Ana Maria (eds.), Romance Linguistics 2009. Selected papers from the 39th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Tucson, Arizona, March 2009, 301320. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Villa García, Julio. 2019. Recomplementation in English and Spanish: Delineating the CP space. Glossa 4(1), art. 56. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.845Google Scholar
Vries, Mark de. 2014. Dislocatie zonder ‘copying rules’. In Hoeksema, Jack & Gilbers, Dicky (eds.), Black Book: A festschrift in honor of Frans Zwarts, 349362. Groningen: University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Wolfe, Sam. 2015. The nature of Old Spanish verb second reconsidered. Lingua 164, 132155.10.1016/j.lingua.2015.06.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfe, Sam. 2016a. On the left periphery of V2 languages: Evidence from Romance Fin and Force V2 systems. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 38, 287310.Google Scholar
Wolfe, Sam. 2016b. A comparative perspective on the evolution of Romance clausal structure. Diachronica 33(4), 461502.10.1075/dia.33.4.02wolCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfe, Sam. 2020. Rethinking medieval Romance Verb Second. In Rebecca, Woods & Sam, Wolfe (eds.), Rethinking Verb Second, 348367. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198844303.003.0015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfe, Sam. 2021. Microvariation in the Old Italo-Romance left periphery: The case of si. Revue roumaine de linguistique 66(2–3), 227246.Google Scholar
Wolfe, Sam. 2022. Microvariation and change in the Romance Left Periphery. Probus 34(1), 235272.10.1515/probus-2022-0009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfe, Sam. 2024. A conspiracy theory for the loss of V2 in Romance. Journal of Historical Syntax 8(5), 142. https://doi.org/10.18148/hs/2024.v8i5.194Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, María Luisa. 1998. Prosody, focus and word order. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 33. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Enclisis in (non-imperative) finite main clauses (data from General estoria I, 1272; 535,516 words)

Figure 1

Table 2. Externally merged V2 constituents: estimated occurrence rates in thirteenth-century Spanish

Figure 2

Table 3. EM-driven V2 versus IM-driven V2

Figure 3

Table 4. Most frequent enclisis-triggering adverbs and locutions (data from General estoria I, c. 1272)