ISSN 2385-4138 (digital) Isogloss 2022, 8(3)/3 https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/isogloss.208 1-34 Residual Verb Second in French and Romance Sam Wolfe St Catherine’s College, University of Oxford sam.wolfe@mod-langs.ox.ac.uk Received: 14-02-2022 Accepted: 01-06-2022 Published: 01-09-2022 How to cite: Wolfe, Sam. 2022. Residual Verb Second in French and Romance. In Residual Verb Second in Romance, eds. Silvio Cruschina, Antonio Fábregas & Christine Meklenborg Nilsen. Special issue of Isogloss. Open Journal of Romance Linguistics 8(3)/3, 1-34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/isogloss.208 Abstract This article revisits the classic definition of a Residual Verb Second language in light of evidence from the history of French, which is supplemented with synchronic evidence from the Romance languages. The core proposal is that following the loss of the Verb Second property French has successively lost multiple Verb Second correlates such that the grammar at different stages can be described as ‘more’ or ‘less’ Verb Second, according to the degree of left-peripheral phrasal or head movement permitted. Novel corpus data is presented for Renaissance and Classical French to show that the triggers for such movement become increasingly restricted along micro- and nanoparametric grounds. The gradient conception of Residual Verb Second which emerges from the data is also borne out in the Modern Romance languages, which are argued to instantiate multiple points on a typology of Verb Second residues according to the degree of left- peripheral phrasal movement or head movement that they license. Keywords: Residual verb second, left periphery, verb movement, inversion, French. Isogloss 2022, 8(3)/3 Sam Wolfe 1. Introduction 1.1. Why Residual Verb Second? Studies of Verb Second (V2), which have had a central role in comparative syntax for the last half-century, have seen a resurgence in the past decade (Holmberg 2015; Meklenborg 2019; Lohnstein & Tsiknakis 2019; Woods & Wolfe 2020). The result is a broadened empirical scope for V2 studies within and outside of Indo-European,1 and a refined understanding of how the empirical variation is modeled in formal terms. Despite these advances, relatively little recent research has revised or refined Rizzi’s (1996) conception of a ‘Residual Verb Second’ language. The time is undoubtedly appropriate to revisit its original formulation; firstly, the number of languages now believed to have gone through a V2 stage is substantial, with the consequence that a refined understanding of the process of change a language goes through after having lost V2 is of broad crosslinguistic relevance. Secondly, our understanding of variation within and between V2 systems has improved considerably in recent years; this raises the possibility that the structure a particular V2 grammar has might be linked to the residues of the V2 property witnessed at later stages. Thirdly, as we will discuss further, the very conception of ‘Residual Verb Second’ as an explicitly diachronic label has recently been questioned by Sailor (2020) on the basis of English data. One can therefore ask if the conception is equally problematic when applied to other languages which have previously been granted Residual V2 status. This article draws principally on novel post-medieval French data collected in Wolfe (2021a), though presents the data in their comparative Romance context. Its core finding is that Residual V2 can be used, with appropriate caution, as a diachronic label but – as with many other syntactic properties –2 it should be understood in a more granular fashion than has been the case in the past; the consequence is that Residual V2 grammars can be described as having more or fewer V2 residues when compared to each other. This gradient understanding of Residual V2 applies in historical- diachronic terms to different stages of French and in synchronic terms to Modern Romance varieties. 1.2. Background Assumptions In what follows, a cartographic approach to the left periphery is adopted, in line with work by Benincà (2001), Rizzi (1997, 2001, 2004, 2010), Benincà and Poletto (2004), Ledgeway (2010a) and many others. In summary, the highest portion of the left periphery is made up of projections which are associated with base-generated constituents modifying the entire speech act, encoding pragmatico-semantic features which may pertain to speaker attitude or be thought of as having a ‘background’ or ‘scene-setting’ function (Benincà & Poletto 2004; Haegeman 2006, 2012; Haegeman & Hill 2013; Borreguero Zuloaga 2014; Giorgi 2015), whereas the lower portions host 1 Away from the better studied Germanic varieties, see – amongst many others – Walkden (2014) on Early Germanic, Benincà (2004), Poletto (2014), and Wolfe (2018) on Medieval Romance, Meelen (2016) on Early Celtic, Manetta (2011) on Kashmiri, and van Urk (2015) on Dinka. 2 Consider, for example, the very wide typology now acknowledged for null-subject systems, which show extensive microvariation (Roberts et al. 2010; Camacho 2013; Sheehan 2016; Cognola & Casalicchio 2018). Residual Verb Second in French and Romance Isogloss 2022, 8(3)/3 3 topics or foci, which in the former case may be either externally or internally merged, and are standardly assumed to be internally merged in the case of foci (Rizzi 1997, 2004b, 2010, 2017, 2018; Benincà 2001; Cruschina 2012). Following work by Cruschina (2006, 2012) in particular, I assume a layered set of focus projections hosting contrastive foci, quantified phrases, and new information foci in the lowest discourse-related projections of the left periphery. Finally, note that the Force and Fin heads ‘sandwich’ the topic-focus layers and in the canonical case are able to host complementizers in the Romance languages (Rizzi 1997; Paoli 2007; Villa-García 2012). As we will see in §2.1, these heads are also the target of finite verb movement in V2 systems. (1) Frame/HT > Force > Topic > FocusContrastive > Quantifier > FocusInformation > Fin In this article the recent approach to parametric variation developed by Roberts (2019) and colleagues is adopted. Under this taxonomy of parametric variation, the presence of a relevant feature on a single functional head will yield microparametric variation, whilst the presence of this feature on a progressively larger class of heads will yield meso- and macroparametric variation; variation at the level of a particular lexical item – by contrast – would constitute nanoparametric variation. In our discussion of V2 residues, the relevant points of variation principally concern movement triggers. Consider in this regard the schema in (2) which will inform the analysis (Biberauer & Roberts 2012: 268): (2) For a given value vi of a parametrically variant feature F: a. Macroparameters: all heads of the relevant type, e.g. all probes, all phase heads, etc., share vi; b. Mesoparameters: all heads of a given natural class, e.g. [+V] or a core functional category, share vi; c. Microparameters: a small, lexically definable subclass of functional heads, e.g. modal auxiliaries, subject clitics, share vi; d. Nanoparameters: one or more individual lexical items is/are specified or share vi. In the discussion that follows we will see that this approach to parametric variation allows us to model the relevant ‘size’ of V2 residues which are left in a particular grammar after the loss of the V2 property. 2. Verb Second in French and Beyond 2.1. Delimiting the V2 Property A necessary precursor to any discussion of Residual V2 is a satisfactory definition of a full V2 grammar. Although certain theoretical debates around the nature of the V2 property remain unresolved, our definition here is that a language has a V2 grammar when the following two properties are true of a language (cf. Holmberg 2015, 2020): 4 Isogloss 2022, 8(3)/3 Sam Wolfe (3) a. A functional head in the left periphery attracts the finite verb. b. This head also bears a movement diacritic, triggering merger of a phrasal constituent. This definition – a version of which is widely adopted in work on the V2 property (Cardinaletti & Roberts 2002; Roberts 2012; Salvesen 2013; Walkden 2014; Haegeman & Greco 2018; Wolfe 2019; Wolfe & Woods 2020) – moves away from a linear conception of the phenomenon based solely on the verb occupying second position of the clause, with the result that the typology of V2 systems has broadened considerably beyond the Modern Germanic systems upon which much seminal work originally focused. Identifying full V2 systems synchronically or historically therefore entails establishing the presence of syntactic indicators of the properties in (3). The literature in this area is vast but we should note that indicators of the verb-movement property (3a) include a preference for second position for the finite verb, save for structurally defined exceptions, and widespread ‘inversion’ structures when the subject in the extended inflectional and thematic domain appears lower in the functional structure than the moved verb in the left periphery (Diesing 1990; Holmberg & Platzack 1995; Vikner 1995; de Bakker 1997; Casalicchio & Cognola 2020): (4) a. I går møtte Janne en mann in yesterday meet.3SG.PST Jane a man ‘Yesterday, Jane met a man’ (Modern Norwegian, Salvesen 2013: 133) b. Ac yn diannoty y doeth tan o r and pred immediate part come.3SG.PST fire from the nef heaven ‘And without delay fire came from the sky’ (Middle Welsh, Dewi 86.218, Meelen 2020: 427) c. e ancora eranu vivi alcuni pirsuni and still be.3PL.PST alive some people ‘and some people were still alive’ (Old Sicilian, Gregoriu 162, Wolfe 2018: 28) Moreover, the most prominent indicator that (3b) is a property of the grammar in question is a prefield hosting a wide variety of phrasal categories (Cardinaletti & Roberts 2002; Roberts 2012; Salvesen 2013; Wolfe & Woods 2020); as such, although surface SVO orders are found in all uncontroversial V2 systems observable today, XPNon-Subject-V(S)(O) orders are often viewed as hallmarks of a V2 grammar (Lightfoot 1995: 41; Westergaard 2008): (5) a. Johann hat das Buch gekauft Johann have.3SG the book buy.PTCP b. das Buch hat Johann gekauft the book have.3SG Johann buy.PTCP ‘Johann has bought the book’ (Modern German) c. oft hat Johann das Buch gekauft often have.3SG Johann the book buy.PTCP ‘Johann has often bought the book’ (Modern German) Residual Verb Second in French and Romance Isogloss 2022, 8(3)/3 5 Simplifying slightly and subject to further revision below, a Residual V2 grammar is therefore likely to show residues of the properties in (3); these original properties in a full V2 grammar are systematic verb movement to a head in the left periphery and merger of a phrasal category in the specifier of that head. 2.2. The V2 Syntax of Old and Middle French Since Thurneysen (1892) analyses of Old and Middle French have been advanced that suggest it had a form of V2 grammar. The core observations which led to this conclusion – unsurprising in light of our discussion in §2.1 – are that second position is the preferred position for the finite verb, that the prefield is not a specialized subject position but one that can host a range of grammatical categories with a variety of pragmatic roles (6) (Skårup 1975: 9–69; Roberts 1993: 85–87; Vance 1997: 43–47; Mathieu 2012: 327; Steiner 2014), and that the subject can appear postverbally in inversion structures; particularly significant in this regard are so-called Germanic- inversion structures such as (7), which unambiguously reveal the finite auxiliary to be occupying a C-related head position with the subject appearing in the T-layer (Adams 1987: 4; Roberts 1993: sec. 2.2; de Bakker 1997; Salvesen & Bech 2014; Wolfe 2020). We should note that these Germanic-inversion structures are attested alongside a less frequent Romance-inversion construction where the subject appears lower in the clausal hierarchy, likely at the vP periphery (8):3 (6) a. Par Petit Pont sont en Paris entré by Petit Pont be.3PL in Paris enter.PTCP ‘They entered Paris by Petit Pont’ (Early Old French, Nîmes 11, 27) b. et ausi fist chascuns des autres and also do.3SG.PST each of-the others ‘And each of the others did the same’ (Later Old French, La Queste 344, 35-36) (7) Par tantes teres ad sun cors traveillet over so-many lands have.3SG his body suffer.PTCP ‘His body has suffered over so many lands’ (Early Old French, Roland 540) (8) Sur nus est venue male confusïun upon us be.3SG come.PTCP bad disaster ‘A great disaster has befallen us’ (Early Old French, Roland 2699) There is an increasing consensus that although French was a V2 system from the time of its earliest textual attestations to approximately 1525, the nature of the system was subject to change during this time; this is an unsurprising finding if we consider the fine-grained variation between V2 systems spoken today (Jouitteau 2010; Lohnstein & Tsiknakis 2019; Woods & Wolfe 2020), and the fact that other V2 languages have undergone change during the period when a V2 constraint was operative in their 3 For review and analysis of the relevant data, see De Bakker (1997), Salvesen & Bech (2014), and Wolfe (2020). 6 Isogloss 2022, 8(3)/3 Sam Wolfe grammar.4 In terms of the specific change that the system underwent in the case of French, two related issues are at stake: the height at which the V2 property was operative in the left periphery and the types of constituents which could appear in the prefield. Since at least Hirschbühler (1990) it has been noted that there are significant distinctions between the Early Old French V2 constraint, its instantiation in Later Old French after approximately 1225, and the Middle French V2 system observable in 14th and 15th century texts; this observation has since been developed by Roberts (1993), Vance (1993, 1995, 1997), Rouveret (2004), and Wolfe (2016a, 2018, 2021a) among others. The data are relatively complex, but the key points for our understanding of later developments are as follows: Early Old French presents clear evidence that the full range of left-peripheral projections can be lexicalised before the finite verb. As such, information foci (9), QPs, contrastive foci, topics – both null (10) and overt (11) –, and frame-setters can precede the verb. (9) Un faldestoed i unt a chair LOC.CL have.3PL ‘They have a (folding) chair’ (Early Old French, Roland 115) (10) Vait s’en li pople go.3SG REFL.CL=PART.CL the people ‘The people go away’ (Early Old French, Alexis 71, 1) (11) Ço senefiet pais e humilitet this signify.3SG peace and humility ‘This signifies peace and humility’ (Early Old French, Roland 73) However, between 1180 and 1225 a notable change occurs whereby attestation of preverbal information foci declines considerably, and preverbal null topics are no longer licensed; it is therefore not atypical for Later Old French texts to feature no verb-initial sentences akin to those in (11). These observations, alongside the fact that verb-third sentences almost exclusively entail an initial frame-setter in Later Old French, have led Rouveret (2004), Wolfe (2016a), and Ledgeway (2021) to hypothesize that the locus of V2 changes from Early to Later Old French; while in Early Old French a low left-peripheral head, Fin, bears the Edge Feature (EF) and verb-movement trigger associated with V2, these features are also associated with a higher head in Later Old French, namely Force; this yields a descriptively stricter V2 system than what is found in early texts, with no verb-initial sentences, a highly restricted set of verb-third sentences, and a prefield which predominantly hosts topical constituents in V2 clauses (13): (13) Ceste aventure veïstes vos aucune foiz this event see.2PL.PST you some time ‘You have sometimes seen this event’ (Later Old French, La Queste 152.22) 4 Consider in this regard English (Van Kemenade 1987; Kroch & Taylor 1997; Haeberli 2002; Walkden 2014), German (Axel 2004, 2007), Welsh (Willis 1998, 2007; Roberts 2004, 2005; Meelen 2016, 2020), Italian (Poletto 2014, 2019), and Portuguese (Ribeiro 1995; Galves & Paixão de Sousa 2013; Galves 2020), amongst many other languages. Residual Verb Second in French and Romance Isogloss 2022, 8(3)/3 7 Middle French shows a degree of continuity with the Later Old French system but also attests certain changes: the prefield predominantly hosts topical constituents, which is a point of continuity with Later Old French, and evidence for initial foci is scarce, although initial QPs are still attested. However, a point of variation when compared to Later Old French is the wider range of verb-third triggers which are found, not all of which can plausibly be analyzed as involving an initial frame-setter (cf. 14). Wolfe (2021b), on the basis of clauses like (14) and other pieces of evidence, suggests that the locus of Middle French V2 is Fin, as in (15). (14) a. A quoy le Roy fist responce to which the King make.3SG.PST response ‘The king responded to this’ (Middle French, Monstre 29) b. Pour ce je suis de vostre oppinion for this I be.1SG of your opinion ‘Because of this I agree with you’ (Middle French, Jehpar 25) (15) a. Early Old French. Fin {+EF, uV} b. Later Old French. Fin {+EF, uV}, Force {+EF, uV} c. Middle French. Fin {+EF, uV} 2.3. Summary – The Fall of Full V2 and Rise of Residual V2 To summarize our discussion so far, we should note that Old and Middle French featured a V2 syntax throughout the medieval period until approximately 1525. This V2 syntax was not, however, a fully stable entity and underwent change during the five centuries in which it was attested. The most significant changes that we should note here are that the height of systematic V-to-C movement undergoes reanalysis from Fin to Force around 1225, and then again from Force to Fin around 1300. Furthermore, and linked to this change in the locus of verb movement, the range of constituents that can occur in the prefield undergoes change: whereas in Early Old French a full range of frame-setters, topics, and foci can precede the finite verb, in Later Old French and Middle French it is predominantly frame-setters and topics which may do so, alongside a small class of contrastive foci and QPs. A Middle French V2 grammar with V-to-Fin movement and a prefield predominantly hosting topics is therefore in operation in the period immediately before the loss of V2. As we will now see, this has an effect in conditioning the type of Residual V2 grammar we see in Renaissance French. 3. The Emergence of Residual Verb Second 3.1. What Counts as Residual Verb Second? As noted at the beginning of this article, the Residual V2 label is originally used by Rizzi (1996) to describe inversion structures in Modern French and English, which – as we have established above in the case of French – are descended from the earlier full V2 systems attested in Old and Middle French and English.5 It is worth noting 5 See Fischer et al. (2000) for a review in the case of English. 8 Isogloss 2022, 8(3)/3 Sam Wolfe from the outset, however, that although the notion that inversion structures in the modern languages are ‘derived’ from earlier full V2 structures is an intuitive one, Rizzi’s seminal analysis does not set out to make explicitly diachronic claims. In fact, showing direct derivation from a structure attested at one stage of a language to a subsequent stage is inherently problematic; if, as is standardly assumed in the generativist literature (Lightfoot 1991, 1999; Roberts 2021), syntactic acquisition involves abductive reanalysis of the Primary Linguistic Data (PLD), no structure is ever passed directly from one generation to the next and thus the concept of ‘residue’ should be taken as a shorthand for an overall more complex picture of reanalysis and change. Taking as our point of departure the bipartite definition of full V2 given in (3), in this article we consider Residual V2 as entailing structures where subsequent generations of acquirers reanalyze portions of the PLD as consistent with verb or XP movement into the left periphery. However, we will also see in the discussion that follows, that an understanding of subsequent reanalyses of these data towards structures that do not involve left-peripheral movement is also key to developing a robust account of syntactic change. 3.2. Left-Peripheral Phrasal Movement The evidence is very clear that French loses the V2 system early in the 16th century (Vance 1995; Roberts 1993; Kroch 2001; Steiner 2014; Wolfe 2021b). As we will see in §3.3, evidence for verb-subject inversion declines considerably from this point on, but we should also note here that – unlike Old and Middle French – constituent fronting to the left periphery is clearly no longer systematic either. Consider Table 1 in this regard, which shows a sample of matrix clauses from Wolfe (2021a: 72): Table 1. Constituent Fronting in Renaissance and Classical French. Rabelais (1532-34) Montaigne (1580) Phèdre (1677) Candide (1759) Total 416 89.8% 382 91.4% 738 99.6% 802 99.1% SVO Total XP-V- 47 10.2% 36 8.6% 3 0.4% 7 0.9% (S) Total O- 1 0.2% 1 0.2% 1 0.13% 1 0.12% V-S Total 463 100.0% 418 100.0% 741 100.0% 809 100.0% Count The data are systematic in showing that in upwards of c. 90% of matrix clauses the prefield hosts a subject, which is consistent with the notion that we are no longer dealing with a grammar where Fin bears a category-blind Edge Feature, as in Middle French but rather a grammar which is predominantly SVO, where EPP-effects are located in the T-v layer. However, it is not the case that no non-subject constituents can be merged in the left periphery, as Table 1 attests; such cases are, however, extremely rare, with no focal DP objects, for example, found in initial position in any of the clauses in Table 1. One example of a focal PP-object is found in Phèdre (16), and the secondary literature includes cases of fronted QPs (17), which are found alongside contrastive foci: Residual Verb Second in French and Romance Isogloss 2022, 8(3)/3 9 (16) A nos amis communs portons nous justes cris to our friends common bring.1PL we just cries ‘We will bring our righteous complaints to our common friends’ (Classical French, Phèdre 5, 1, 1367) (17) Autre chose ne me sceut il dire other thing NEG me.CL know.3SG.PST he say.INF ‘He couldn’t tell me anything else’ (Classical French, Biard 96, Combettes 2003: 180) While fronted focal objects such as these are marginally attested in the 16th and 17th centuries, they are absent after this point (Marchello-Nizia 1995: 165). However, alongside QP-fronting of the type witnessed in (17), predicative adjectives and a wide class of adverbials can undergo focalization to the left periphery as in (18, 19). In both cases a large class of predicative adjectives and adverbials can originally be focalized in the 16th century, but this class is later lexically defined and becomes increasingly restricted from the mid-16th century onwards (Spillebout 1985: 405; Marchello-Nizia & Prévost 2020: 1905; Wolfe 2021a: 74-75). (18) Possible n’est pour le present possible NEG-be.1SG for the present ‘It is not presently possible’ (Renaissance French, Rabelais 4, 35) (19) a. Mais maintenant crioit-elle fermement que but now believe.3SG.PST-she resolutely that ‘But now she believed resolutely that’ (Renaissance French, Heptaméron 3, 1, 44) b. Lors commença le seigneur de Humevesne then begin.3SG.PST the mister of Humevesne ‘Then Mr Humevesne began…’ (Renaissance French, Rabelais 12, 6) Looking ‘upwards’ to the topic layer, note that although left-dislocation with clitic resumption is extremely widespread from the 15th century onwards (Combettes 2003), a subclass of topical objects can reach the left periphery via internal merge, as in a full V2 grammar. Specifically, these objects are explicitly anchored to the preceding discourse, with many scholars commenting on their ‘anaphoric’ nature in the literature (Combettes 2003: 175-176; Lardon & Thomine 2009: 401; Marchello-Nizia & Prévost 2020: 1094): (20) Ceste region dit Herodian estre feconde this region say.3SG Herodian be.INF fertile ‘Herodian says that this region is fertile’ (Renaissance French, Thevet f5, r, Combettes 2003: 175) (21) A ceste destinée ne pouons nous contreuenir to this destiny NEG can.1PL we contrevene.INF ‘We cannot prevent this fate’ (Renaissance French, Rabelais 3, 51) 10 Isogloss 2022, 8(3)/3 Sam Wolfe To summarize the empirical picture for Renaissance and Classical French, in terms of the half of the V2 constraint concerned with XP-fronting, the 16th to 18th centuries see increasing restrictions on its operation. In a striking contrast to a full V2 system, the movement-triggering EF is not feature-blind but rather targets explicitly anaphoric constituents in the case of topicalization. In the case of focalization, we see diachronic variation within this period between a less restricted system where a wide class of QPs, PPs, AdjPs and AdvPs can undergo focalization, to one where QP- and PP-focalization is infrequent and the class of AdjPs and AdvPs undergoing movement is a lexically defined class. In terms of the parametric schema set out in (2), we are therefore dealing with microparametric variation in the earlier system and nanoparametric variation in the later one. Turning to Modern French, it is essential to note that any concept of a homogeneous ‘French left periphery’ is rendered problematic by the regional and sociolinguistic variation which affects the featural makeup of the C-domain.6 Formal Standard French shows a degree of continuity with the system observable in Classical French: contrastive foci are licensed (22) (Belletti 2005), alongside a lexically restricted class of adjectives and adjectival phrases which can undergo focalization (23) (Marchello-Nizia & Prévost 2020: 1167; Lauwers & Tobback 2020),7 PPs can also undergo fronting in formal varieties (24). A subclass of speaker-oriented adverbials is also well known to permit focalization in formal French varieties alongside pronominal inversion (on which cf. §3.3) (25) (Guimier 1997; Lahousse 2015). (22) Pierre ils ont arrêté (pas Jean) Pierre they have.3PL arrest.PTCP NEG Jean ‘They have arrested Pierre, (not Jean)’ (Formal Standard French) (23) Tel est mon avis such be.3SG my view ‘Such is my view’ (Formal Standard French) (24) A ça vous n’avez pas pensé to that you NEG-have.2PL NEG think.PTCP ‘You haven’t thought of that’ (Formal Standard French) (25) Peut-être viendra-t-il perhaps come.3SG.FUT-he ‘Perhaps he’ll come’ (Formal Standard French) 6 For a review see Rowlett (2007) in particular. 7 Lauwers and Tobback (2020: 496–497) show that the oft-cited ‘archaic’ nature of adjectival phrase-fronting should be taken with some caution, as certain adjectives such as nombreux ‘numerous’ and rare ‘rare, few’ can be productively fronted in certain texts such as newspapers. This finding is in keeping with the schema of parametric variation assumed in this article where lexical relics of previously productive macro-, meso-, or microparametric operations are predicted to persist in the grammar. Residual Verb Second in French and Romance Isogloss 2022, 8(3)/3 11 With the exception of contrastive focus, where its exact diachronic trajectory is challenging to establish from the textual records, we should note that the class of PPs, adjectives, and adverbials which can focalize is smaller than in Classical French; in the latter two cases an already lexically restricted class of focalizable APs is further restricted in formal French varieties. We should also note that the class of explicitly anaphoric objects which could be topicalized without clitic resumption in Classical French, cannot be in Formal Standard French. Instead, although not as widespread in formal varieties as colloquial ones, left dislocation with clitic resumption is employed, which we return to below. The restricted range of focalization operations existing in Formal Standard French are not licit in all French varieties. Although some recent accounts have reported attested examples of focussed constituents in colloquial French varieties (Abeillé, Godard & Sabio 2008; Authier & Haegeman 2019; Cruschina 2021: 9–12), contrastive focalization as in (22) is absent in North American French varieties (Larrivée 2022), and dispreferred by some European French speakers, who instead employ a cleft as the preferred focalisation strategy (26) (Belletti 2005). Likewise, the nanoparametrically determined class of foci licit in formal varieties and outlined immediately above are not associated with colloquial French varieties, which therefore license no form of information focus nor QP-fronting.8 Finally, note that wh-words, which we have not discussed diachronically for reasons of space, are frequently realized in-situ in interrogatives in colloquial French varieties (27) (Cheng & Rooryck 2000; Rowlett 2007: sec. 5.7.1). They thus show parallel evolution to other foci in showing decreasing movement possibilities over time. (26) C’est Jean qu’ils ont arrêté it-be.3SG Jean that-they have.3PL arrest.PTCP ‘It’s Jean that they have arrested’ (Modern French) (27) Tu vas où? you go.2SG where ‘Where are you going?’ (Modern Colloquial French) In colloquial French varieties, left dislocation is widely employed to encode topicality. Space constraints preclude a full discussion, but for our purposes we should note that speakers employ two different structures both without (28) and with clitic resumption (29), which have been analyzed as featuring base-generated XPs in a left-peripheral topic projection (Cinque 1990; Rowlett 2007: 103; Haegeman 2012: 104; De Cat 2009: 149–155)9: 8 Though see Authier & Haegeman (2019) for the possibility that certain colloquial varieties do license mirative focus fronting. Detailed diachronic work – yet to be undertaken – is needed to establish whether this is a genuinely novel form of focus emerging or a sub-type of the more widespread focus-fronting operations which characterised earlier stages of French 9 No stance is taken here on whether the derivation of left dislocation remains constant throughout the history of French; this is largely due to the difficulty of applying movement diagnostics to constructions which are sporadically attested in the earliest texts. See Salvesen (2013) and Van Kemenade & Meklenborg (2021) for some discussion of this issue. 12 Isogloss 2022, 8(3)/3 Sam Wolfe (28) 10F, ce truc m’a coûté 10F this thing me-have.3SG cost.PTCP ‘This thing cost me 10F’ (Modern Colloquial French, Rowlett 2007: 183) (29) Les voisins, ils ont mangé mon lapin the neighbours they have.3PL eat.PTCP my rabbit ‘They neighbours, they ate my rabbit’ (Modern French) The most ‘advanced’ Modern French varieties therefore license no focalization and license topicalization only when it entails base-generation. This is thus the exact inverse of a full V2 grammar where an XP systematically reaches the left periphery via internal merge and can target either the topic or focus layer. Taking the data in this section together, we see that the ways in which the topic and focus layer can be lexicalized have become increasingly restricted diachronically along micro- and nanoparametric lines. Looking first at the focus system, in Early Old French contrastive foci, information foci, and QPs can move to the focus field, though in Later Old and Middle French information foci do so to a lesser extent than in Early Old French; from Renaissance French onwards contrastive foci and QPs can still move, but otherwise only specific categories of XP may do (Renaissance French) or lexically defined exceptions (Classical French). In the Formal Standard French spoken today contrastive foci can move, as can an even smaller lexically defined class of PPs and APs, but QPs cannot. Focalization of APs is not a feature of colloquial French and for certain European speakers and all Canadian speakers left-peripheral contrastive foci are also not licit: Table 2. Left-Peripheral Focus in French Varieties Past and Present Early Old Later Old Middle French French French CFoc + + + QPs + + + IFoc + ± ± Renaissance Formal Standard Classical French French French CFoc + + + QPs + + - ± Subclass of APs ± Subclass of APs IFoc ± APs, PPs and PPs and PPs Colloquial Colloquial European Canadian French French CFoc ± - QPs - - IFoc - - The situation concerning internally merged topics is a less complex one, though again we note that a transitional stage is attested where a subclass of ‘anaphoric’ moved topics are licensed in Renaissance and Classical French, before the possibility of internally merging topics is lost from the system (30): Residual Verb Second in French and Romance Isogloss 2022, 8(3)/3 13 (30) All Topics > Anaphoric Topics > LD Only Old and Middle French Renaissance and Classical Modern French French Overall, an investigation into the ‘relics’ of one half of the V2 constraint, that requiring internal merge of an XP, shows that the notion of Residual V2 is insufficiently granular. What we instead observe is a mesoparametric property – full V2 – giving way to micro- and nano-parametric restrictions on the class of XP which can be internally merged in the C-domain. In the case of internally merged topics, we can differentiate between two stages after the loss of V2: the grammar of Renaissance and Classical French where only topics with a specific pragmatic value can be internally merged, and subsequent stages of French where only base-generated topics are licensed. In the case of left-peripheral focus, the picture is one of even greater variation with non-quantified, non-contrastive foci lost from the grammar in a stepwise fashion, firstly on the basis of their syntactic category (microparametric variation) and later based on whether they are members of an exceptional lexical class (nanoparametric variation). We will now see that the second component of a V2 grammar – head movement – shows a similarly complex array of variation. 3.3. Left-Peripheral Head Movement Despite inversion – derived via V-to-Fin or V-to-Force movement – being a hallmark of Old and Middle French syntax, its attestation becomes increasingly sparse from the 16th century onwards (Foulet 1919; Harris 1978: 31–34; Combettes, Marchello-Nizia & Prévost 2020: 1223–1224), as the paucity of examples of XPNon-Subject-V-S orders in Table 1 shows. Nevertheless, cases like (19b, 20) above and (31) below, where nominal subjects occur lower in the functional hierarchy than the finite verb or auxiliary, suggest that residual V-to-Fin movement in declaratives may have formed part of the grammar of early Renaissance French in the presence of an initial focal constituent of the type discussed in §3.2: (31) Et bien malheureuse est la dame, qui ne and well ill-fated be.3SG the woman who NEG garde soigneusement le tresor… guard.3SG carefully the wealth ‘And the woman who does not carefully guard her wealth […], is very unfortunate’ (Renaissance French, Heptaméron 5, 100, Lardon & Thomine 2009: 401) After 1600, however, nominal inversion with a subject in the inflectional layer, of the type which is widespread in a full V2 grammar and still licensed in residual V2 systems such as Modern English (Rizzi 1996; Sailor 2020), is near entirely absent in French 14 Isogloss 2022, 8(3)/3 Sam Wolfe declaratives in all but the most formal styles.10, 11, 12 This yields the system, still attested in Modern French, where pronominal inversion is considerably more productive than its nominal counterpart (32). There are reasons to doubt that this is ‘true’ relic V-to-Fin, however. Following recent proposals by Cardinaletti (2021) for Northern Italo-Romance varieties, Wolfe (2021a: 136) analyzes this split – attested since the 16th century – between semi-productive pronominal inversion and highly restricted nominal inversion, as the surface reflex of a grammar where a Subj head can probe the finite auxiliary and verb but where Fin is not typically endowed with the featural specification to do so. Such an account straightforwardly accounts for why in many contexts postverbal pronominal subjects are licensed but nominal subjects are not, if we assume in line with Cardinaletti (2021) and prior work that pronominal subjects occupy a lower position in the functional structure than their nominal counterparts (33):13 (32) a. Peut-être vient-il perhaps come.3SG-he ‘Perhaps he’ll come’ b. *Peut-être vient Jean perhaps come.3SG Jean (33) … [FinP [SubjP (SubjectDP) [Subj VFin] [TP (SubjectPronominal) [vP [v VFin] … ]]]] However, this V-to-Subj movement has undoubtedly been most productive since the renaissance in non-declarative clause-types. While nominal inversion in interrogatives declines markedly in the 16th century, pronominal inversion is far more widely attested (cf. 34) (Foulet 1919: 249; Elsig 2009: sec. 5.2.7; Fournier 2007: 121): (34) a. Voulez-vous mon cousteau? want.2PL-you my knife ‘Do you want my knife?’ (Renaissance French, Rabelais 21, 235) b. Veux-je la souffrir? 10 Note in this regard the recent corpus study of Marchello-Nizia and Prévost (2020: 1098) who view the marginal attestation of nominal subjects from Classical French onwards as ‘sporadique’. Lahousse (2003, 2006) argues convincingly that such subjects either remain in their base-generated vP-internal position or target a left-peripheral focus projection. We therefore exclude them from our discussion of the postverbal subjects in the inflectional layer most relevant to residual V2. 11 Wolfe (2021a: 127‒131) presents independent evidence from adverbial placement that finite verb movement in Renaissance and Classical French declarative clauses targets a position within the T-layer, as in the modern language (Pollock 1989; Schifano 2018). 12 I explicitly exclude from the discussion of verb movement cases where a postverbal subject occurs low in the functional structure and the verb does not move higher than its unmarked position. 13 Varieties of French with marked V-to-Subj movement in interrogatives would therefore be those where the relevant features of a C-related head (e.g. Q, Wh) are ‘donated’ in the terms of Ouali (2008) to a head lower in the structural hierarchy, in this case Subj (see also Miyagawa 2012; Jiménez-Fernández & Miyagawa 2014). Residual Verb Second in French and Romance Isogloss 2022, 8(3)/3 15 want.1SG-I her.CL suffer.INF ‘Do I want to suffer her?’ (Classical French, Clèves 347, Fournier 2007: 120) V-to-Subj movement, itself the outcome of reanalysis of V2-related V-to-Fin movement, is already subject to structural restrictions in the 16th century, however: Elsig (2009: 133, 212–213) shows on the basis of detailed quantitative analysis that while high-frequency auxiliaries and lexical verbs favour inversion, their lower frequency counterparts do not, and instead occur in in-situ constructions or those employing the interrogative particle est-ce-que. Subsequent reanalyses have also seen further microparametric restrictions become systematic, namely the non-acceptability of pronominal inversion with first-person-singular subjects (35), and a strong preference for auxiliary inversion over inversion of lexical verbs, which are however still attested (Coveney 1996: 106–110; Rowlett 2007: 205; Roberts 2010: 305).14 (35) a. *Chante-je? sing-I ‘Do I sing?’ (Modern French) b. Chantez-vous? sing.2PL-you ‘Do you sing?’ (Modern French) While V-to-Subj movement in pronominal inversion structures is relatively widespread in certain Canadian and Belgian varieties, for most speakers in France it is principally associated with formal registers and thus not a systematic feature of colloquial French grammar (De Cat 2009: 6; Elsig 2009). Furthermore, Zribi-Hertz (1994) notes that in North African French in particular, structures involving inversion and thus V-to-Subj movement are systematically avoided. In a parallel fashion to the most ‘advanced’ French varieties that disallow left-peripheral XP-movement of any kind, these varieties have thus diverged furthest from a V2 grammar in not permitting finite verb or auxiliary movement to either Fin or Subj. We can therefore schematize the variation attested diachronically and synchronically as follows: (36) Systematic V-to-Fin > Systematic V-to-Force > Early Old French Later Old French Systematic V-to-Fin > Marked V-to-Fin, Unmarked V-to-T > Middle French Renaissance French Marked V-to-Subj, Unmarked V-to-T > Systematic V-to-T Classical French, Formal Standard French, Colloquial European Canadian and Belgian French and North African French As with XP-movement, the residual-V2 status of French varieties is therefore a gradient notion. While marked V-to-Fin movement, permitting postverbal nominal subjects in Spec-SubjP, is licensed in Renaissance French, this grammar is rapidly reanalyzed as one where marked verb or auxiliary movement targets a lower head, 14 See Biberauer & Roberts (2012) for a very similar trajectory for interrogative inversion in the history of English. 16 Isogloss 2022, 8(3)/3 Sam Wolfe Subj, and is thus a more indirect V2 residue in structural terms. As early as the 16th century we have seen that the conditions under which the Subj head can attract verbs and auxiliaries is already subject to nanoparametric variation, with certain frequent lexical verbs and auxiliaries more readily attracted than others; in ‘permissive’ French varieties today where V-to-Subj movement is part of the grammar, such nanoparametric restrictions still exist and affect the grammatical person of the verb of auxiliary in question. Finally, the most ‘advanced’ colloquial French varieties have diverged furthest from the original full V2 grammar in licensing no inversion at all. 3.4. Summary The data discussed above strongly suggest that a tripartite typology of ‘full’, ‘residual’ and ‘non-’ V2 systems is insufficiently granular to capture the full range of grammars attested in the history of French alone. Putting to one side the growing consensus that the ‘full’ V2 typology is itself subject to extensive internal variation (Biberauer 2002; Holmberg 2015; Wolfe 2016b; Haegeman & Greco 2018), we see that the Residual V2 label can be construed so as to encompass a grammar with a relatively large or extremely restricted range of residual V2 structures. The picture therefore mirrors that of partial-null-subject languages, where the term covers grammars where a large class of subjects can be realized as null or others where the class is highly constrained (Holmberg 2005; Holmberg, Nayudu & Sheehan 2009; Shlonsky 2009). An additional finding of our analysis is that it is not strictly correct to describe ‘Modern French’ as a Residual V2 system: although the standard formal language and certain colloquial varieties maintain specific V2 residues, other colloquial varieties of French have minimal or non-existent left-peripheral movement of heads or XPs; they are thus non- V2 systems. Table 3. V2 Residues in Varieties of French. V2 Residues Variety XP-Movement Head-Movement All Topics Early Old French Systematic V-to-Fin All Foci All Topics Later Old French Systematic V-to-Force Full V2 All Foci All Topics Middle French CFoc, QPs, Systematic V-to-Fin IFoc (Declining) Anaphoric Topics Marked V-to-Fin Renaissance French CFoc, QPs, Unmarked V-to-T IFoc (APs, PPs) Anaphoric Topics CFoc, QPs, Marked V-to-Subj Classical French Residual V2 IFoc (Subclass of Unmarked V-to-T APs, PPs) LD Only CFoc, Marked V-to-Subj Formal Standard French IFoc (Subclass of Unmarked V-to-T APs, PPs) Residual Verb Second in French and Romance Isogloss 2022, 8(3)/3 17 LD Only Marked V-to-Subj Belgian French CFoc Unmarked V-to-T Marked V-to-Subj Canadian French LD Only Unmarked V-to-T ‘Advanced’ Colloquial Non-V2 European and North LD Only Systematic V-to-T African French 4. French within a Romance Context When our domain of enquiry is extended to a broader range of Romance data, it becomes clear that the conclusion that the Residual V2 typology is an internally rich one is not restricted to French. Looking at the residues of the first component of a full V2 grammar, namely the requirement for XP-fronting, we see that the synchronic variation in Romance today evidences different degrees of continuity or divergence from the maximally active topic and focus layer that characterized the V2 syntax of Medieval Romance (Benincà 2004; Salvi 2012; Poletto 2014). Despite internally merged topics being highly restricted in all but the most formal French today, many Occitan (Sauzet 1989; Faure & Oliviéri 2013), Ibero-Romance (Rivero 1980; Zubizarreta 1998: 99–118; Zagona 2001: 215–217; Vallduví 2002; Kato & Raposo 2007; Leonetti 2017), Italo- Romance (Benincà 2001; Ledgeway 2010a, 2010b), Sardinian (Jones 1993: 114–115; Remberger 2010), and Romanian varieties (Zafiu 2013: 570) license widespread topicalization without clitic resumption. Looking at the focus layer, certain more permissive Modern Romance systems pattern with Early Old French in permitting fronting of information foci, QPs, and contrastive foci, such as Romanian (Motapanyane 1998; Cornilescu 2002; Zafiu 2013), Sardinian (Mensching & Remberger 2010; Cruschina 2012), certain Southern Italo-Romance varieties (Ledgeway 2009; Cruschina 2012; Cruschina & Remberger 2017), and some Ibero- Romance varieties (Jiménez-Fernández 2015): (37) a. Un libbru ci detti a book him.CL give.1SG.PST ‘I gave him a book’ (Modern Sicilian, Cruschina 2012: 54) b. Albă e doar pe margini white be.3SG only on margins ‘[The dress] is white only on the margins’ (Modern Romanian, Zafiu 2013: 570) c. Pasta está comiendo pasta be.3SG eat.PROG ‘He’s eating pasta’ (Modern Southern Peninsular Spanish, Jiménez-Fernández 2015: 3) Other varieties pattern with Renaissance or Classical French in permitting left- peripheral contrastive foci and QP-fronting, as is the case in certain Northern Italo- Romance varieties (Paoli 2007, 2010), Catalan (Vallduví 2002; Quer 2002), and many Occitan varieties (González i Planas 2009). Turinese is argued by Paoli (2003, 2007) 18 Isogloss 2022, 8(3)/3 Sam Wolfe to disallow focus-fronting of any kind; it thus instantiates the most advanced point on the Residual V2 cline akin to Colloquial Canadian French: (38) * IL GELATO a l’ha catà Gioann, the ice-cream SCL SCL-have.3SG buy.PTCP John nen la torta NEG the cake ‘It is the ice-cream that John has bought, not the cake’ (Turinese, Paoli 2003:163) The crucial observation is that we can differentiate between a first class of modern varieties which have maintained widespread – though not systematic – argument fronting despite having lost V2 (e.g., Romanian, Sardinian, Sicilian, Cosentino, and Neapolitan), a second class showing rich internal variation where argument fronting still obtains but with greater microparametric restrictions than in the former class (Spanish, European Portuguese, Catalan, Occitan, and some Northern Italo-Romance varieties), and a third class where argument fronting is either nanoparametrically restricted or not licensed; Turinese is in this class, though further investigation may reveal that other Northern Italo-Romance and Northern Gallo-Romance varieties belong here also. With reference to the residues of the half of the V2 constraint concerned with argument fronting, only the first two classes are in a meaningful sense Residual V2 grammars and we see that some have considerably more V2 relics than others; these are represented in the middle two columns of Table 4 below. A tripartite typology also emerges when considering left-peripheral verb or auxiliary movement. Aside from the full V2 Rhaeto-Romance languages which uniformly license V-to-Fin/Force movement (Poletto 2002), the majority of other Romance varieties show movement to a C-related head under specific structural conditions. Although the exact height of the movement is subject to ongoing debate (Barbosa 2001; Pesetsky & Torrego 2001), Romanian (Giurgea & Remberger 2012), Sardinian (39) (Mensching & Remberger 2016: 286), many Southern and Central Italo-Romance varieties (Cruschina 2012: chap. 5), and Peninsular Spanish and Portuguese show robust attestation of inversion structures (Ambar 1999; Costa 2000; Zagona 2001: 50). (39) Telefonatu at Juanne telephone.PTCPhave.3SG Juanne ‘Has Juanne called?’ (Modern Sardinian, Jones 1993: 24) (40) Ha cantado Juan? have.3SG sing.PTCP Juan ‘Has Juan sung?’ (Modern Peninsular Spanish) Aside from these more ‘permissive’ systems sit a number of Northern Italo-Romance (Munaro 1999; Parry 2003; Cardinaletti 2021), Caribbean Spanish (Ordóñez & Olarrea 2006), Catalan (Planas-Morales & Villalba 2013), and Francoprovençal varieties (De Crousaz & Shlonsky 2003; Kristol 2010), which display complex restrictions – determined by clause type, verb-person, and the pragmatic status of the Residual Verb Second in French and Romance Isogloss 2022, 8(3)/3 19 postposed subject – on when V-to-Subj/C movement can obtain. Characteristic of these systems are alternative strategies for encoding interrogatives, such as grammaticalized clefts, the use of interrogative particles, and right dislocation (Munaro 2003; Poletto & Zanuttini 2010; Prieto & Rigau 2007; Planas-Morales & Villalba 2013; Mioto & Lobo 2016). (41) Que plou? that rain.3SG ‘Is it raining?’ (Modern Peninsular Catalan, Prieto & Rigau 2007: 30) (42) O vindran a Ciutadella or come.3PL.FUT to Ciutadella ‘Are they coming to Ciutadella?’ (Modern Balearic Catalan, Prieto & Rigau 2007: 30) The most ‘advanced’ colloquial European and North African French varieties permitting no inversion form the third part of this typology, and pattern with a number of other under-investigated Northern Gallo-Romance varieties which are reported not to permit inversion of any kind; this class includes but is not limited to Lorrain (Aub- Buscher 1962) and certain Norman and Wallon varieties (Franz 1912; Dawson et al. 2021). The basic but important generalization holds once more, therefore, that modern Romance varieties which feature residues of inversion do so to greatly varying extends and that there exists a small class of grammars which are not residual V2 at all. Taking the data concerning left-peripheral XP-fronting and head-movement, we observe that the rich variation between French varieties today is mirrored in the synchronic variation observable elsewhere in Modern Romance. As Table 4 attempts to show, this includes variation internal to the class here termed ‘Partial’ V2, shown in its middle two columns: Table 4. Residual V2 as a Gradient Notion in Romance. Full V2 Partial V2 Non-V2 Marked Movement to a C-related Head Widespread Subject to Unmarked Marked Head Micro- or Unmarked V-to-T Movement to Movement Movement Nanoparametric Movement Fin or Force to a C- Restrictions related Head (Subject Type, Verb Class, Person)15 15 The pronominal inversion properties of certain French varieties as well as many Northern Italo-Romance, Francoprovençal, and Occitan varieties would fit into this category, where V-to-C or V-to-Subj movement is not licensed for all persons or verb types (Poletto 2000; Elsig 2009; Kristol 2010; Hinzelin & Kaiser 2012). 20 Isogloss 2022, 8(3)/3 Sam Wolfe Only Certain Topic/Focus Full Heads Systematic XP- Topic/Focus Accessible Fronting to Layer XP-Fronting Spec- Accessible Range of No XP Fronting FinP/Spec- to Internal Possible Topics ForceP Merge of or Foci Subject XPs to Micro- or Nanoparametric Restrictions 5. Conclusions This article has set out to propose that the notion of ‘Residual V2’ should be reconceptualized as encompassing a class of grammars, some of which may have a substantial number of V2 residues and others where V2 residues are no longer productive in the grammar or are restricted to specific registers. In the case of French, we are able to track variation internal to the considerable period during which it is a full V2 system, during which there are changes affecting the height of verb movement and the conditions under which XP-fronting is licensed. Against this backdrop, it is perhaps not surprising that the subtypes of high verb-movement and XP-fronting which feature in later Residual or ‘Partial’ V2 grammars also vary both diachronically and synchronically. In the simplest of terms, the diachronic and synchronic Francophone and Romance typologies constitute systems with large and small amounts, and – in certain cases – no XP-fronting or verb movement to high peripheral heads. Significantly, the relevant changes in French and Romance show clear directionality in that the range of heads and phrases which can be internally merged in the left periphery decreases diachronically. More specifically, we observe grammars where particular featural properties of the goal for movement, such as [+Q, +A] give way to those where only specific lexical items can undergo such movement; this stands in sharp contrast to recent data Sailor (2020) presents for Germanic where the class of XPs which can target the left periphery appears to be widening in certain varieties. Reasons for this apparent split between the two language families should be explored in future research, though we should note for now that the Romance data appear to support the intuition in much literature on syntactic change that structures involving external merge are favoured in acquisition over their internally merged counterparts for reasons of economy (Roberts & Roussou 2002; Van Gelderen 2009).16 Though this hypothesis has often been discussed with reference to grammaticalisation, the V2 data present a potentially revealing case-study where this preference on the part of the acquirer affects word-order change and the mapping between syntax and information structure. If, as suggested, internally merged structures – though pervasive in the world’s languages – are in certain circumstances dispreferred in acquisition, this may account for the apparent instability in the focus layer in the history of French and the 16 For some recent discussion of the child acquirer’s role in driving change, see Cournane (2017). Residual Verb Second in French and Romance Isogloss 2022, 8(3)/3 21 particularly intense microvariation observable in this domain between the Modern Romance languages; if foci – in contrast to topics – are always internally merged in the left periphery (e.g. Benincà & Poletto 2004) and acquirers have a bias towards external merge, we would predict – accurately in the case of Romance – that the topic layer will be subject to less variation and change than the focus layer. Summarising, the basic contention of this article is that Residual V2 systems are not a homogeneous class and that the extent to which V2 residues form a core part of the grammar is subject to extensive crosslinguistic microvariation; the structure of this microvariation may reveal insights about the direction of word-order change and the acquisitional factors which drive it. References Abeillé, Anne, Danièle Godard & Frédéric Sabio. 2008. Two types of NP preposing in French. Proceedings of the International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. https://doi.org/10.21248/hpsg.2008.18. Adams, Marianne. 1987. From Old French to the theory of pro-drop. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 5(1): 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00161866 Ambar, Manuela. 1999. Aspects of the syntax of focus in Portuguese. In Georges Rebuschi & Laurice Tuller (eds.), The Grammar of Focus, 23–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/la.24.02amb Aub-Buscher, Gertrud. 1962. Le parler rural de Ranrupt (Bas Rhin) : essai de dialectologie vosgienne. Paris: Klincksieck. Authier, Marc & Liliane Haegeman. 2019. The syntax of mirative focus fronting: Evidence from French. In Deborah Arteaga (ed.), Contributions of Romance Languages to Current Linguistic Theory, 39–63. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11006-2_3 Axel, Katrin. 2004. The syntactic integration of preposed adverbial clauses on the German left periphery: A diachronic perspective. In Horst Lohnstein & Susanne Trissler (eds.), The Syntax and Semantics of the Left Periphery, 23–58. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110912111.23 Axel, Katrin. 2007. Studies on Old High German Syntax Left Sentence Periphery, Verb Placement and Verb-Second. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Bakker, Cecile de. 1997. Germanic and Romance Inversion in French. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. Barbosa, Pilar. 2001. On inversion in wh-questions in Romance. In Aafke Hulk & Jean-Yves Pollock (eds.), Subject Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal 22 Isogloss 2022, 8(3)/3 Sam Wolfe Grammar, 20–59. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Belletti, Adriana. 2005. Answering with a cleft: The role of the Null-subject parameter and the vP periphery. In Laura Brugè, Giuliana Giusti, Nicola Munaro, Walter Schweikert & Giuseppina Turano (eds.), Contributions to the thirtieth “Incontro di Grammatica Generativa”, 63–82. Venice: Editrice Cafoscarina. Benincà, Paola. 2001. On the position of topic and focus in the left periphery. In Guglielmo Cinque & Giampaolo Salvi (eds.), Current Studies in Italian Syntax. Essays offered to Lorenzo Renzi, 39–64. London & New York: Elsevier. Benincà, Paola. 2004. The left periphery of Medieval Romance. Studi linguistici e filologici online 2(2): 243–297. Benincà, Paola & Cecilia Poletto. 2004. Topic, focus, and V2. In Luigi Rizzi (ed.), The Structure of CP and IP, 52–75. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Biberauer, Theresa. 2002. Reconsidering embedded verb second: How “real” is this phenomenon? Working Papers in English and Applied Linguistics 8: 25‒60. Biberauer, Theresa & Ian Roberts. 2012. Towards a Parameter Hierarchy for Auxiliaries: Diachronic Considerations. Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 6. 267–294. Camacho, José. 2013. Null Subjects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139524407 Cardinaletti, Anna. 2021. The position of subjects in Germanic and Romance questions. In Sam Wolfe & Christine Meklenborg (eds.), Continuity and Variation in Germanic and Romance, 44–70. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198841166.003.0003 Cardinaletti, Anna & Ian Roberts. 2002. Clause Structure and X-Second. In Guglielmo Cinque (ed.), Functional Structure in DP and IP, vol. 1, 123–166. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315310572-12 Casalicchio, Jan & Federica Cognola. 2020. Parameterizing “lexical subject-finite verb” inversion across Verb Second languages: On the role of Relativized Minimality at the vP edge. In Rebecca Woods and Sam Wolfe (eds), Rethinking Verb Second, 594–622. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198844303.003.0025 Cheng, Lisa & Johan Rooryck. 2000. Licensing Wh‐in‐situ. Syntax 3(1): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00022 Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990. Types of A’ Dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cognola, Federica & Jan Casalicchio (eds.). 2018. Null Subjects in Generative Residual Verb Second in French and Romance Isogloss 2022, 8(3)/3 23 Grammar: A Synchronic and Diachronic Perspective. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198815853.001.0001 Combettes, Bernard. 2003. Variation dans la structure du syntagme verbal. In Bernard Combettes (ed.), Évolution et variation en français préclassique. Études de syntaxe, 171–198. Paris: Honoré Champion. Combettes, Bernard, Christiane Marchello-Nizia & Sophie Prévost. 2020. Syntaxe de la phrase simple. In Christiane Marchello-Nizia, Bernard Combettes, Sophie Prévost & Scheer Tobias (eds.), Grande grammaire historique du français, vol. 2, 1055–1220. Berlin: De Gruyter. Cornilescu, Alexandra. 2002. Rhematic focus at the left periphery: the case of Romanian. In Claire Beyssade, Reineke Bok-Bennema, Frank Drijkoningen & Paola Monachesi (eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2000, 77–91. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Costa, João. 2000. Word order and discourse configurationality in European Portuguese. In Portuguese Syntax: New comparative studies, 94–115. New York: Oxford University Press. Cournane, Ailís. 2017. In defense of the child innovator. In Éric Mathieu & Robert Truswell (eds.), Micro Change and Macro Change in Diachronic Syntax, 10–24. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Coveney, Aidan. 1996. Variability in Spoken French: A sociolinguistic study of interrogation and negation. Exeter: Elm Bank. Cruschina, Silvio. 2006. Information focus in Sicilian and the left periphery. In Mara Frascarelli (ed.), Phases of Interpretation, 363–385. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Cruschina, Silvio. 2012. Discourse-Related Features and Functional Projections. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199759613.001.0001 Cruschina, Silvio. 2021. The greater the contrast, the greater the potential: On the effects of focus in syntax. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 6(1): 3. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1100 Cruschina, Silvio & Eva-Maria Remberger. 2017. Focus fronting. In Elisabeth Stark & Andreas Dufter (eds.), Manual of Romance Morphosyntax and Syntax, 502–535. Berlin: De Gruyter. Dawson, Alain, Cyril Auran, Caroline Bouzon, Laurence Delrue, Rudy Loock, Kathleen M. O’Connor & Cédric Patin. 2021. French in Nord (Nord-Pas-de-Calais): A speaker from La Madeleine. In Sylvain Detey, Jacques Durand, Bernard Laks & Chantal Lyche (eds.), Varieties of Spoken French, 147‒157. Oxford: Oxford 24 Isogloss 2022, 8(3)/3 Sam Wolfe University Press. De Cat, Cécile. 2009. French Dislocation: Interpretation, syntax, acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. De Crousaz, Isabelle & Ur Shlonsky. 2003. The distribution of a subject clitic pronoun in a Franco-Provençal dialect and the licensing of pro. Linguistic Inquiry 34(3): 413– 442. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438903322247542 Diesing, Molly. 1990. Verb movement and the subject position in Yiddish. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 8(1): 41–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00205531 Elsig, Martin. 2009. Grammatical Variation Across Space and Time: The French interrogative system. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Faure, Richard & Michèle Oliviéri. 2013. Stratégies de topicalisation en occitan. Corpus 12: 231–270. https://doi.org/10.4000/corpus.2391 Fischer, Olga, Ans van Kemenade, Willem Koopman & Wim van der Wurff. 2000. The Syntax of Early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Foulet, Lucien. 1919. Petite syntaxe de l’ancien français. Paris: H. Champion. Fournier, Nathalie. 2007. Grammaire du français classique. Paris: Belin. Franz, Arthur. 1912. Studien zur Wallonischen Dialektsyntax. Zeitschrift für Französische Sprache und Literatur 40: 222‒265. Galves, Charlotte. 2020. Relaxed V2 in Classical Portuguese. In Rebecca Woods & Sam Wolfe (eds.), Rethinking Verb Second, 368–396. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198844303.003.0016 Galves, Charlotte & Maria Clara Paixão de Sousa. 2013. The loss of verb-second in the history of Portuguese: Subject position, clitic placement and prosody. Universidade de Campinas, Universidade de São Paulo. Ms. Giurgea, Ion & Eva-Maria Remberger. 2012. Verum focus and polar questions. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics 14: 21–40. González i Planas, Francesc. 2009. Cartografia de les posicions de subjecte en gascó. Linguistica Occitana 7: 83‒99. http://hdl.handle.net/10256/11112 Guimier, Claude. 1997. La place du sujet clitique dans les énoncés avec adverbe initial. In Catherine Fuchs (ed.), La place du sujet en français contemporain, 43–95. Louvain: Duculot. Haeberli, Eric. 2002. Inflectional morphology and the loss of verb-second in English. In David Lightfoot (ed.), Syntactic Effects of Morphological Change, 88–106. Oxford: Residual Verb Second in French and Romance Isogloss 2022, 8(3)/3 25 Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199250691.003.0005 Haegeman, Liliane. 2012. Adverbial Clauses, Main Clause Phenomena, and Composition of the Left Periphery. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199858774.001.0001 Haegeman, Liliane & Ciro Greco. 2018. West Flemish V3 and the interaction of syntax and discourse. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 21(1): 1–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-018-9093-9 Harris, Martin. 1978. The Evolution of French Syntax: A comparative approach. London & New York: Longman. Hinzelin, Marc-Olivier & Georg A. Kaiser. 2012. Le paramètre du sujet nul dans les variétés dialectales de l’occitan et du francoprovençal. In Mario Barra Jover (ed.), Études de linguistique gallo-romane, 247–261. Vincennes: Presses Univ. de Vincennes. Hirschbühler, Paul. 1990. La légitimation de la construction V1 à sujet nul dans la prose et la vers en ancien français. Revue québécoise de linguistique théorique et appliqué 19: 32–55. https://doi.org/10.7202/602664ar Holmberg, Anders. 2005. Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish. Linguistic Inquiry 36(4): 533–564. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438905774464322 Holmberg, Anders. 2015. Verb Second. In Tibor Kiss & Alexiadou Alexiadou (eds.), Syntax – Theory and Analysis, 242–283. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110377408.342 Holmberg, Anders. 2020. On the Bottleneck Hypothesis in Swedish. In Rebecca Woods & Sam Wolfe (eds.), Rethinking Verb Second, 40–60. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198844303.003.0003 Holmberg, Anders, Aarti Nayudu & Michelle Sheehan. 2009. Three partial null- subject languages: a comparison of Brazilian Portuguese, Finnish and Marathi. Studia Linguistica 63(1): 59–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.2008.01154.x Holmberg, Anders & Christer Platzack. 1995. The Role of Inflection in Scandinavian Syntax. New York: Oxford University Press. Jiménez-Fernández, Ángel L. 2015. When focus goes wild: An empirical study of two syntactic positions for information focus. Linguistics Beyond and Within (LingBaW) 1: 119–133. https://doi.org/10.31743/lingbaw.5627 Jiménez-Fernández, Ángel L. & Shigeru Miyagawa. 2014. A feature-inheritance 26 Isogloss 2022, 8(3)/3 Sam Wolfe approach to root phenomena and parametric variation. Lingua 145. 276–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.04.008 Jones, Michael Allan. 1993. Sardinian Syntax. London: Routledge. Jouitteau, Mélanie. 2010. A typology of V2 with regard to V1 and second position phenomena: An introduction to the V1/V2 volume. Lingua 120(2): 197–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.11.011 Kato, Mary & Eduardo Raposo. 2007. Topicalization in European and Brazilian Portuguese. In José Camacho, Nydia Flores-Ferrán & Liliana Sánchez (eds.), Romance linguistics 2006: selected papers from the 36th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), New Brunswick, March 31-April 2, 2006, 205–218. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kristol, Andres. 2010. Syntaxe variationnelle du clitique sujet en francoprovençal valaisan contemporain: un modèle pour la diachronie du galloroman septentrional? Travaux de linguistique (Gand) 69: 47–67. https://doi.org/10.3917/tl.059.0047 Kroch, Anthony. 2001. Syntactic change. In Mark Baltin & Chris Collins (eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, 699–729. Oxford: Blackwell. Kroch, Anthony & Ann Taylor. 1997. Verb movement in Old and Middle English: dialect variation and language contact. In Ans Van Kemenade & Nigel Vincent (eds.), Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change, 297–325. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lahousse, Karen. 2003. The distribution of postverbal nominal subjects in French. Université de Paris 8 PhD Thesis. Lahousse, Karen. 2006. NP subject inversion in French: two types, two configurations. Lingua 116(4). 424–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2004.08.020 Lahousse, Karen. 2015. A case of focal adverb preposing in French. In Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia Hamann & Simona Matteini (eds.), Structures, Strategies and Beyond: Studies in honour of Adriana Belletti, 209–236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/la.223.10lah Lardon, Sabine & Marie-Claire Thomine. 2009. Grammaire du français de la Renaissance Étude morphosyntaxique. Paris: Classiques Garnier. Larrivée, Pierre. 2022. The curious case of the rare focus movement in French. In Davide Garassino & Daniel Jacob (eds.), When Data Challenges Theory: Unexpected and paradoxical evidence in information structure, 184–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/la.273.06lar Lauwers, Peter & Els Tobback. 2020. Predicational and (quasi‐)specificational Residual Verb Second in French and Romance Isogloss 2022, 8(3)/3 27 constructions with fronted adjectival predicates in French. Transactions of the Philological Society 118(3): 468–499. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-968X.12201 Ledgeway, Adam. 2009. Aspetti della sintassi della periferia sinistra del cosentino. (Ed.) Diego Pescarini. Quaderni di lavoro ASIt 9(Studi sui dialetti della Calabria). 3– 24. Ledgeway, Adam. 2010a. Introduction: The clausal domain: CP structure and the left periphery. In Roberta D’Alessandro, Adam Ledgeway & Ian Roberts (eds.), Syntactic Variation: The Dialects of Italy, 38–52. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ledgeway, Adam. 2010b. Subject Licensing in CP: The Neapolitan double-subject construction. In Paola Benincà & Nicola Munaro (eds.), Mapping the Left Periphery. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 5, 257–296. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199740376.003.0009 Ledgeway, Adam. 2021. V2 beyond borders: The histoire ancienne jusqu’à César. Journal of Historical Syntax 5(29): 1–25. https://doi.org/10.18148/hs/2021.v5i29.83 Leonetti, Manuel. 2017. Basic Constituent Orders. In Elisabeth Stark & Andreas Dufter (eds.), Manual of Romance Morphosyntax and Syntax, 887–932. Berlin: De Gruyter. Lightfoot, David. 1991. How to Set Parameters: Arguments from language change. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310001127X Lightfoot, David. 1995. Why UG needs a learning theory: Triggering verb movement. In Adrian Battye & Ian Roberts (eds.), Clause Structure and Language Change, 31– 52. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lightfoot, David. 1999. The Development of Language: Acquisition, Change, and Evolution. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Lohnstein, Horst & Antonios Tsiknakis (eds.). 2019. Verb Second: Grammar internal and grammar external interfaces. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Manetta, Emily. 2011. Peripheries in Kashmiri and Hindi-Urdu: The syntax of discourse-driven movement. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.4 Marchello-Nizia, Christiane. 1995. L’évolution du français: Ordre des mots, démonstratifs, accent tonique. Paris: Armand Colin. Marchello-Nizia, Christiane & Sophie Prévost. 2020. Expression et position des constituants majeurs dans les divers types de propositions. In Christiane Marchello- Nizia, Bernard Combettes, Sophie Prévost & Scheer Tobias (eds.), Grande grammaire historique du français, vol. 2, 1055–1220. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 28 Isogloss 2022, 8(3)/3 Sam Wolfe https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110348194-039 Mathieu, Éric. 2012. The left periphery in Old French. In Deborah Arteaga (ed.), Research in Old French: The state of the art, 327–350. Dordrecht: Springer. Meelen, Marieke. 2016. Why Jesus and Job spoke bad Welsh: The origin and distribution of V2 orders in Middle Welsh. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Leiden. Meelen, Marieke. 2020. Reconstructing the rise of Verb Second in Welsh. In Rebecca Woods & Sam Wolfe (eds.), Rethinking Verb Second, 426–455. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198844303.003.0018 Meklenborg, Christine (ed.). 2019. A Micro-Perspective on Verb Second in Romance and Germanic. Special issue of Linguistic Variation 19(1): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.00010.mek Mensching, Guido & Eva Remberger. 2010. Focus fronting and the left periphery in Sardinian. In Roberta D’Alessandro, Adam Ledgeway & Ian Roberts (eds.), Syntactic Variation: The Dialects of Italy, 261–276. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mensching, Guido & Eva-Maria Remberger. 2016. Sardinian. In Adam Ledgeway & Martin Maiden (eds.), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages, 270–291. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.003.0017 Mioto, Carlos & Maria Lobo. 2016. Wh-movement: Interrogatives, relatives and clefts. In Leo Wetzels, Sergio Menuzzi & João Costa (eds.), The Handbook of Portuguese Linguistics, 275–293. Oxford: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118791844.ch15 Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2012. Agreements that occur mainly in the main clause. In Lobke Aelbrecht, Liliane Haegeman & Rachel Nye (eds.), Main Clause Phenomena, 79–112. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/la.190.04miy Motapanyane, Virginia. 1998. Focus, checking theory and fronting strategies in Romanian. Studia Linguistica 52(3): 227–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467- 9582.00035 Munaro, Nicola. 1999. Sintagmi interrogativi nei dialetti italiani settentrionali. Padua: Unipress. Munaro, Nicola. 2003. On some differences between exclamative and interrogative Wh-phrases in Bellunese: further evidence for a Split-CP hypothesis. In Christina Tortora (ed.), The Syntax of Italian Dialects, 137–151. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ordóñez, Francisco & Antxon Olarrea. 2006. Microvariation in Caribbean/non Caribbean Spanish interrogatives. Probus 18(1): 59–96. Residual Verb Second in French and Romance Isogloss 2022, 8(3)/3 29 https://doi.org/10.1515/PROBUS.2006.003 Ouali, Hamid. 2008. On C-toT Phi-Feature Transfer: the nature of Agreement and Anti-Agreement in Berber. In Roberta D’Alessandro, Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson & Susann Fischer (eds.), Agreement Restrictions, 159–180. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110207835.159 Paoli, Sandra. 2003. Comp and the Left Periphery: Comparative Evidence from Romance. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Manchester. Paoli, Sandra. 2007. The fine structure of the left periphery: COMPs and subjects: Evidence from Romance. Lingua 117(6): 1057–1079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2006.05.007 Paoli, Sandra. 2010. In focus: an investigation of information and contrastive constructions. In Roberta D’Alessandro, Adam Ledgeway & Ian Roberts (eds.), Syntactic Variation: The Dialects of Italy, 277–291. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Parry, Mair. 2003. The interaction of pragmatics and syntax in the development of wh- interrogatives with overt complementizer in Piedmontese. In Christina Tortora (ed.), The Syntax of Italian Dialects, 152–174. New York: Oxford University Press. Pesetsky, David & Esther Torrego. 2001. T-to-C Movement: Causes and Consequences. In Michael Kentstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 355–426. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Planas-Morales, Sílvia & Xavier Villalba. 2013. The right periphery of interrogatives in Catalan and Spanish: Syntax/Prosody Interactions. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 12: 193–217. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/catjl.72 Poletto, Cecilia. 2000. The Higher Functional Field: Evidence from Northern Italian Dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Poletto, Cecilia. 2002. The left-periphery of V2-Rhaetoromance dialects: A new view on V2 and V3. In Sjef Barbiers, Leonie Cornips & Susanne van der Kleij (eds.), Syntactic Microvariation, 214–242. Amsterdam: Meertens Institute. Poletto, Cecilia. 2014. Word Order in Old Italian. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199660247.001.0001 Poletto, Cecilia. 2019. More than one way out: On the factors influencing the loss of V to C movement. Linguistic Variation 19(1): 47–81. https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.16001.pol Poletto, Cecilia & Raffaella Zanuttini. 2010. Sentential Particles and Remnant Movement. In Paola Benincà & Nicola Munaro (eds.), Mapping the Left Periphery. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 5, 201–227. New York: Oxford 30 Isogloss 2022, 8(3)/3 Sam Wolfe University Press. Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, Universal Grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20(3): 365–425. Prieto, Pilar & Gemma Rigau. 2007. The syntax-prosody interface: Catalan interrogative sentences headed by que. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 6(2): 29–59. https://doi.org/10.5334/jpl.139 Quer, Josep. 2002. Edging quantifiers. On QP-fronting in Western Romance. In Claire Beyssade, Reineke Rok-Bennema, Frank Drijkoningen & Paola Monachesi (eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2000, 253–270. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.232.14que Remberger, Eva-Maria. 2010. Left-peripheral interactions in Sardinian. Lingua 120(3): 555–581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.10.010 Ribeiro, Ilza. 1995. A sintaxe da ordem no português arcaico: o efeito V2. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Campinas. https://doi.org/10.47749/t/unicamp.1995.83984 Rivero, María-Lluisa. 1980. On left-dislocation and topicalization in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry 11(2): 363–393. Rizzi, Luigi. 1996. Residual verb second and the wh-criterion. In Adriana Belletti & Luigi Rizzi (eds.), Parameters and Functional Heads, 63–90. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar: Handbook of Generative Grammar, 281–338. Dordrecht: Kluwer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7 Rizzi, Luigi. 2001. On the position “Int(errogative)” in the Left Periphery. In Guglielmo Cinque & Giampaolo Salvi (eds.), Current Studies in Italian Syntax. Essays offered to Lorenzo Renzi, 286–296. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Rizzi, Luigi. 2004. Locality and left periphery. In Adriana Belletti (ed.), Structures and Beyond. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, 223–251. New York: Oxford University Press. Rizzi, Luigi. 2010. On Some Properties of Criterial Freezing. In E. Phoevos Panagiotidis (ed.), The Complementizer Phase, 17–32. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Roberts, Ian. 1993. Verbs and Diachronic Syntax: A comparative history of English and French. Dordrecht: Kluwer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2910-7 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 Residual Verb Second in French and Romance Isogloss 2022, 8(3)/3 31 Structures, Vol. 2, 297–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Roberts, Ian. 2005. Principles and Parameters in a VSO Language: A case study in Welsh. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195168211.001.0001 Roberts, Ian. 2010. Varieties of French and the Null Subject Parameter. In Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts & Michelle Sheehan (eds.), Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory, 303–328. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511770784.009 Roberts, Ian. 2012. Phases, head movement and second-position effects. In Ángel J Gallego (ed.), Phases: Developing the framework, 385–440. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110264104.385 Roberts, Ian. 2021. Diachronic Syntax. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Roberts, Ian & Anna Roussou. 2002. Syntactic Change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rouveret, Alain. 2004. Les clitiques pronominaux et la périphérie gauche en ancien français. Bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris 99(1) : 181–237. https://doi.org/10.2143/bsl.99.1.541914 Rowlett, Paul. 2007. The Syntax of French. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511618642 Sailor, Craig. 2020. Rethinking Residual Verb Second. In Rebecca Woods & Sam Wolfe (eds.), Rethinking Verb Second, 126–150. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198844303.003.0006 Salvesen, Christine. 2013. Topics and the Left Periphery: A comparison of Old French and Modern Germanic. In Terje Lohndal (ed.), In Search of Universal Grammar: From Old Norse to Zoque, 131–172. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/la.202.10sal Salvesen, Christine & Kristin Bech. 2014. Postverbal Subjects in Old English and Old French. Oslo Studies in Language 6(1): 201–228. https://doi.org/10.5617/osla.725 Salvi, Giampaolo. 2012. On the Nature of the V2 System of Medieval Romance. In Laura Brugè, Anna Cardinaletti, Giuliana Giusti, Nicola Munaro & Cecilia Poletto (eds.), Functional Heads. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 7, 103–111. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199746736.003.0008 Sauzet, Patrick. 1989. Topicalisation et prolepse en occitan. Revue des langues romanes 93: 235–273. 32 Isogloss 2022, 8(3)/3 Sam Wolfe Schifano, Norma. 2018. Verb Movement in Romance: A comparative study. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198804642.001.0001 Sheehan, Michelle. 2016. Subjects, null-subjects and expletives in Romance. In Susann Fischer & Christoph Gabriel (eds.), Manual of Grammatical Interfaces in Romance, 362–392. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110311860-014 Shlonsky, Ur. 2009. Hebrew as a Partial Null Subject Language. Studia Linguistica 63: 133–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.2008.01156.x Skårup, Povl. 1975. Les premières zones de la proposition en ancien français. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag. Spillebout, Gabriel. 1985. Grammaire de la langue française du XVIIe siècle. Paris: Picard. Steiner, B. Devan. 2014. The Role of Information Structure in the Loss of Verb-Second in the History of French. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Indiana. Thurneysen, Rudolf. 1892. Die Stellung des Verbums in Altfranzösischen. Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 16(1–4): 289–307. Vallduví, E. 2002. L’oraciò com a unitat informativa. In J. Solà, M. R. Lloret, J. Mascaró & M. Pérez-Saldanya (eds.), Gramàtica del català contemporani, vol. 2, 1221–1279. Barcelona: Empúries. Van Gelderen, Elly. 2009. Feature Economy in the Linguistic Cycle. In Paola Crisma & Giuseppe Longobardi (eds.), Historical Syntax and Linguistic Theory, 93–109. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Van Kemenade, Ans. 1987. Syntactic Case and Morphological Case in the History of English. Dordrecht: Foris. Van Kemenade, Ans & Christine Meklenborg. 2021. Issues in the left periphery of Old French and Old English: topic types and the V2 constraint. In Sam Wolfe & Christine Meklenborg (eds.), Continuity and Variation in Germanic and Romance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Van Urk, Coppe. 2015. A uniform syntax for phrasal movement: A case study of Dinka Bor. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology PhD Thesis. Vance, Barbara. 1993. Verb-first declaratives introduced by et and the position of pro in old and middle French. Lingua 89(2–3). 281–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024- 3841(93)90055-2. Vance, Barbara. 1995. On the decline of verb movement to Comp in Old and Middle French. In Adrian Battye & Ian Roberts (eds.), Clause Structure and Language Residual Verb Second in French and Romance Isogloss 2022, 8(3)/3 33 Change, 173–199. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vance, Barbara. 1997. Syntactic Change in Medieval French. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Vikner, Sten. 1995. Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic languages. New York: Oxford University Press. Villa-García, Julio. 2012. Recomplementation and locality of movement in Spanish. Probus 24(2): 257–314. https://doi.org/10.1515/probus-2012-0011 Walkden, George. 2014. Syntactic Reconstruction and Proto-Germanic. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198712299.001.0001 Westergaard, Marit. 2008. Acquisition and change: On the robustness of the triggering experience for word order cues. Lingua 118(12): 1841–1863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.05.003 Willis, David W. E. 1998. Syntactic Change in Welsh: A study of the loss of the verb- second. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Willis, David W. E. 2007. Historical syntax. In David Borsley, David W. E. Willis and Maggie Tallerman (eds.), The Syntax of Welsh, 286–337. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511486227.010 Wolfe, Sam. 2016a. A comparative perspective on the evolution of Romance clausal structure. Diachronica 33(4): 461–502. https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.33.4.02wol Wolfe, Sam. 2016b. On the Left Periphery of V2 Languages. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa: Selected Papers from the 41st Incontro di Grammatica Generativa 38: 287–310. Wolfe, Sam. 2018. Verb Second in Medieval Romance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198804673.001.0001 Wolfe, Sam. 2019. Redefining the typology of V2 languages: the view from Medieval Romance and beyond. Linguistic Variation 19(1): 16–46. https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.15026.wol Wolfe, Sam. 2020. Reconsidering variation and change in the Medieval French subject system. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 5(1). 1–29. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.942 Wolfe, Sam. 2021a. Syntactic Change in French. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198864318.001.0001 34 Isogloss 2022, 8(3)/3 Sam Wolfe Wolfe, Sam. 2021b. Parametric Stability and Word Order Change: The Case of Middle French. Journal of Historical Syntax 5(31): 1–44. https://doi.org/10.18148/hs/2021.v5i31.108 Wolfe, Sam & Rebecca Woods. 2020. Introduction. In Rebecca Woods & Sam Wolfe (eds.), Rethinking Verb Second. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zafiu, Rodica. 2013. Information structure. In Panâ Dindelegan (ed.), The Grammar of Romanian, 568–575. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zagona, Karen. 2001. The Syntax of Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511613234 Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 1994. La syntaxe des clitiques nominatifs en français standard et en français avancé. Travaux de Linguistique et de Philologie 32: 131–147. Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1998. Prosody, Focus, and Word Order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.