Cover not available
Part of
Proto-Indo-European Syntax and its Development
Edited by Leonid Kulikov and Nikolaos Lavidas
[Benjamins Current Topics 75] 2015
► pp. 51–78

Proto-Indo-European verb-finality

Reconstruction, typology, validation

| University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Although the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European as verb-final is widely accepted, there continue to be dissenting opinions (e.g. Friedrich 1975). See e.g. Pires & Thomason (2008), who question the fruitfulness of Indo-European syntactic reconstruction. In this article I address two issues: First, the reconstructable subordination strategies, including relative-correlative structures, are perfectly in conformity with verb-final typology — pace Lehmann (1974) and Friedrich (1975) who considered relative clauses with finite verbs and relative pronouns incompatible with SOV. Second, verb-final reconstruction makes it possible to account for prosodic and segmental changes that single out finite verbs, such as the non-accentuation of Vedic finite verbs and i-apocope preferentially targeting finite verbs in Italic, Celtic, and Baltic-Slavic. Both developments find a natural, prosodically motivated explanation if we accept PIE as SOV, but not if we do not accept that reconstruction. These facts show that, pace Pires & Thomason (2008), the reconstruction of PIE as verb-final is a fruitful hypothesis.
Published online: 16 July 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.75.04hoc
References (91)
Andrews, Avery D., III. 1975 [1985]. Studies in the Syntax of Relative and Comparative Clauses. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology PhD dissertation. (Reprinted in “lightly retouched version”, 1985, New York/London: Garland.)Google Scholar
Bauer, Anna. 2011. Verberststellung im Hethitischen. Indogermanistik und Linguistik im Dialog: Akten der XIII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft Salzburg ed. by Thomas Krisch, Thomas Lindner, Michael Crombach & Stefan Niederreiter, 39–48. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Behaghel, Otto. 1929. Zur Stellung des Verbs im Germanischen und Indogermanischen. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 56.276–281.Google Scholar
Bergin, Osborn J. 1938. On the Syntax of the Verb in Old Irish. Ériu 12.197–214.Google Scholar
Berneker, Erich Karl. 1900. Die Wortfolge in den slavischen Sprachen. Berlin: Behr.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh. 2003. Locality in Correlatives. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21.485–541. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caldwell, Robert. 1913. A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or South-Indian Family of Languages. 3rd edition, revised and edited by J.L. Wyatt & T. Ramakrishna Pillai. Reprinted 1974, New Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint Corporation.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle & Alice C. Harris. 2002. Syntactic Reconstruction and Demythologizing “Myths and the Prehistory of Grammars”. Journal of Linguistics 38.599–618. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cervin, Richard Stuart. 1990. Word Order in Ancient Greek: VSO, SVO, SOV, or All of the Above? Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Chantraine, Pierre. 1963. Grammaire homérique. 2: Syntaxe. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard, ed. 1987. The World’s Major Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Davison, Alice. 2009. Adjunction, Features, and Locality in Sanskrit and Hindi-Urdu Correlatives. In Anikó Lipták, ed., 223–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dewey, Tonya Kim. 2006. The Origins and Development of Germanic V2: Evidence from Alliterative Verse. Berkeley: University of California PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Downing, Bruce T. 1973. Correlative Relative Clauses in Universal Grammar. Minnesota Working Papers in Linguistics and Philosophy of Language 2.1–17.Google Scholar
. 1978. Some Universals of Relative Clause Structure. Universals of Human Language. Vol. 4: Syntax ed. by Joseph H. Greenberg, 375–418. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1969. Eine textsyntaktische Regel der indogermanischen Wortstellung. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 83.1–25.Google Scholar
Emeneau, Murray B. 1980. Language and Linguistic Area: Essays selected by A. S. Dil. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 1995. Verbal Syntax in the Early Germanic Languages. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
. 1998. Zur historisch-vergleichenden Syntax des Verbums in Germanischen. Sprache und Kultur der Indogermanen; Akten der X. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, 22–28. September 1996 ed. by Wolfgang Meid, 395–410. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.Google Scholar
Ferraresi, Gisella & Maria Goldbach, eds. 2008. Principles of Syntactic Reconstruction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fortson, Benjamin W., IV. 2008. Language and Rhythm in Plautus: Synchronic and Diachronic Studies. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
., IV. 2010. Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Friedrich, Paul. 1975. Proto-Indo-European Syntax. Butte, MT: Journal of Indo-European Studies.Google Scholar
Garrett, Andrew. 1994. Relative Clause Syntax in Lycian and Hittite. Die Sprache 36.29–69.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966. Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements. Universals of Language: Report of a Conference Held at Dobbs Ferry, New York, April 13–15, 1961 ed. by Joseph H. Greenberg, 73–113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth. 1975. Gaps in Grammar and Culture. Linguistics and Anthropology: In Honor of C. F. Voegelin ed. by Marvin Dale Kinkade, Kenneth Locke Hale & Oswald Werner, 295–315. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Harms, Robert T. 1964. Review of The Structure and Development of the Finnish Language by Lauri Hakulinen (Bloomington, IN: Curzon, 1960). Word 20.105–114.Google Scholar
. 1990. Synchronic Rules and Diachronic “Laws”: The Saussurean Dichotomy Reaffirmed. Research Guide on Language Change ed. by Edgar C. Polomé, 313–323. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice. 2008. Reconstruction in Syntax: Reconstruction of Patterns. In Gisella Ferraresi & Maria Goldbach, eds., 73–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice C. & Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haudry, Jean. 1973. Parataxe, hypotaxe et corrélation dans la phrase latine. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 68.147–186.Google Scholar
Hettrich, Heinrich. 1988. Untersuchungen zur Hypotaxe im Vedischen. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich. 1976. Review of An Introduction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics by Raimo Anttila (New York: Macmillan, 1972). Language 52.202–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1982a. AUX-cliticization as a Motivation for Word Order Change. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 12:1.91–101.Google Scholar
. 1982b. Clitic Verbs in PIE or Discourse-based Verb Fronting? Sanskrit sá hovāca gā́rgyaḥ and Congeners in Avestan and Homeric Greek. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 12:2.1–38.Google Scholar
. 1986/1991. Principles of Historical Linguistics. 1st and 2nd ed. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 1989. Conjoined We Stand: Theoretical Implications of Sanskrit Relative Clauses. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 19:1.93–126.Google Scholar
. 1991. On the Origin and Development of Relative Clauses in Early Germanic, with Special Emphasis on Beowulf. Stæfcræft: Studies in Germanic linguistics ed. by Elmer A. Antonsen & Hans Henrich Hock, 55–89. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. Reconstruction and Syntactic Typology: A Plea for a Different Approach. Explanation in Historical Linguistics ed. by Garry W. Davis & Gregory K. Iverson, 105–121. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. Finality, Prosody, and Change. Proceedings of LP ’98 ed. by Osamu Fujimura, Brian D. Joseph & Bohumil Palek, 15–30. Prague: Karolinum Press.Google Scholar
. 2000. Genre, Discourse, and Syntax in Sanskrit. Textual Parameters in Older Languages ed. by Susan C. Herring, Pieter van Reenen & Lene Schøsler, 163–195. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. The Insular Celtic Absolute: Conjunct Distinction Once Again: A Prosodic Proposal. Proceedings of the Sixteenth UCLA Indo-European Conference. Los Angeles, Nov. 5–6, 2005 ed. by Karlene Jones-Bley, Martin E. Huld, Angela Della Volpe & Miriam Robbins Dexter, 153–172. (= The Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph, 50.) Washington: Institute for the Study of Man.Google Scholar
. 2007. Morphology and i-apocope in Slavic and Baltic. Proceedings of the Eighteenth UCLA Indo-European Conference. Los Angeles, Nov. 3–4, 2006 ed. by Karlene Jones-Bley, Martin E. Huld, Angela Della Volpe & Miriam Robbins Dexter, 65–76. (= The Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph, 53.) Washington: Institute for the Study of Man.Google Scholar
. 2008. Dravidian Syntactic Typology: A Reply to Steever. Annual Review of South Asian Languages and Linguistics ed. by Rajendra Singh, 164–198. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2010a. Review of Ferraresi & Goldbach, eds. (2008). Kratylos 55.1–12.Google Scholar
. 2010b. Phrasal Prosody and the Indo-European Verb. Paper at the Arbeitstagung “The Indo-European Verb” of the Indogermanische Gesellschaft, UCLA, September 2010.
. 2014. Vedic Verb Accent Revisited. Vedic and Sanskrit Historical Linguistics. Papers from the 13th World Sanskrit Conference ed. by Jared Klein & Elizabeth Tucker, 153–178.Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Hoffner, Harry A. 1997. The Laws of the Hittites: A Critical Edition. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
van den Hout, Theo. 2003. Studies in the Hittite Phraseological Construction I: Its Syntactic and Semantic Properties. Hittite Studies in Honor of Harry A. Hoffner, Jr. on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday ed. by Gary M. Beckman, Richard Henry Beal & Gregory McMahon, 177–204. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. (= Linguistic Inquiry Monographs, 25.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward. 1985. Relative Clauses. Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Volume II: Complex Constructions ed. by Timothy Shopen, 141–170, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Keydana, Götz. In Press. Indo-European Syntax. Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An International Handbook of Language Comparison and the Reconstruction of Indo-European ed. by Matthias A. Fritz & Jared S. Klein. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Klein, Jared S. 1992. On Verbal Accentuation in the Rigveda. (= American Oriental Society Essay, 11.) New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1987. Turkish and the Turkic Languages. In Bernard Comrie, ed., 619–644.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Hans. 1933. Zur Wortstellung und -betonung im Altgermanischen. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 57.1–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 1996. Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1974. Proto-Indo-European Syntax. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
. 1978. Conclusion: Toward an Understanding of the Profound Unity Underlying Languages. Syntactic Typology: Studies in the Phenomenology of Language ed. by Winfred P. Lehmann, 395–422. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Leumann, Manu, Johann B. Hofmann & Anton Szantyr. 1977a. Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre. München: Beck.Google Scholar
. 1977b. Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik. München: BeckGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, David W. 2002a. Myths and the Prehistory of Grammars. Journal of Linguistics 38.113–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002b. More Myths. Journal of Linguistics 38.619–626. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lipták, Anikó. 2009. The Landscape of Correlatives: An Empirical and Analytical Survey. In Anikó Lipták, ed., 1–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
, ed. 2009. Correlatives Crosslinguistically. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mallory, James P. & D.Q. Adams. 1997. Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. London: Fitzroy-Dearborn.Google Scholar
Meenakshi, K. 1983. Epic Syntax. New Delhi: Meherchand Lachhmandas.Google Scholar
Meiser, Gerhard. 1998. Historische Laut- und Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Oberlies, Thomas. 2003. A Grammar of Epic Sanskrit. (= Indian Philology and South Asian Studies, 5.) Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pintzuk, Susan. 1991. Phrase Structures in Competition: Variation and Change in Old English Word Order. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Pires, Acrisio & Sarah G. Thomason. 2008. How Much Syntactic Reconstruction is Possible? In Gisella Ferraresi & Maria Goldbach, eds., 27–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Probert, Philomen. 2006. Clause Boundaries in Old Hittite Relative Sentences. Transactions of the Philological Society 104:1.17–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schleicher, August. 1856. Handbuch der litauischen Sprache, 1: Grammatik. Prag: Calve.Google Scholar
Schwyzer, Eduard. 1949. Griechische Grammatik 2: Syntax und syntaktische Stilistik, completed and edited by Albert Debrunner. München: Beck.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1987. Japanese. In Bernard Comrie, ed., 855–880.Google Scholar
Sihler, Andrew L. 1995. New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Speijer, Jakob S. 1886. Sanskrit Syntax. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Steever, Sanford B. 1987. The Serial Verb Formation in the Dravidian Languages. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Yasuko. 2008. Finite Verb Stress and Clitic Verbs in Old English Beowulf. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Taylor, Ann. 1990. Clitics and Configurationality in Ancient Greek. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
. 1994. The Change from SOV to SVO in Ancient Greek. Language Variation and Change 6.1–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomason, Sarah G. 2006. Syntactic Reconstruction. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd ed., Vol. 10 ed. by Keith Brown, 397–401. Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomason, Sarah G. & Terrence Kaufman. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Wackernagel, Jacob. 1892. Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung. Indogermanische Forschungen 1.333–345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watkins, Calvert. 1962. Indo-European Origins of the Celtic Verb. Dublin: Institute for Advanced Studies.Google Scholar
. 1963. Preliminaries to a Historical and Comparative Analysis of the Old Irish Verb. Celtica 6.1–49.Google Scholar
. 1964. Preliminaries to the Reconstruction of Indo-European Sentence Structure. Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Linguists ed. by Horace G. Lunt, 1035–1045. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
. 1976. Towards Proto-Indo-European Syntax: Problems and Pseudo-Problems. Papers from the Parasession on Diachronic Syntax ed. by Sanford Steever, Carol A. Walker & Salikoko S. Mufwene, 305–326. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Weiss, Michael. 2009. Outline of the Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press.Google Scholar
Wichmann, Søren. 2008. The Study of Semantic Alignment: Retrospect and the State of the Art. The Typology of Semantic Alignment ed. by Mark Donohue & Søren Wichmann, 3–23. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yoshida, Yutaka. 2009. Sogdian. The Iranian Languages ed. by Gernot Windfuhr, 279–335. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Elvira, Javier
2020. Nouns and labelling. In Changes in Meaning and Function [IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature, 25], ► pp. 2 ff. DOI logo
Elvira, Javier
2022. Epifenomenología diacrónica. Borealis – An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 11:1 ► pp. 25 ff. DOI logo
Hock, Hans Henrich
2019. Latin influence on German word order?. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 33 ► pp. 183 ff. DOI logo
Hock, Hans Henrich
2022. Language Contact in South Asia. In The Cambridge Handbook of Language Contact, ► pp. 299 ff. DOI logo
Sapp, Christopher
2016. Word order patterns in the Old High German right periphery and their Indo-European origins. Diachronica 33:3 ► pp. 367 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Linguistic Areas. In The Cambridge Handbook of Language Contact, ► pp. 187 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.