Inversion (linguistics)

::b. **Will Fred** stay? - Subject–auxiliary inversion with yes/no question ::a. **Larry has** done it. ::b. What **has Larry** done? - Subject–auxiliary inversion with constituent question ::a. **Fred has** helped at no point. ::b. At no point **has Fred** helped. - Subject–auxiliary inversion with fronted expression containing negation (negative inversion) ::a. If **we were** to surrender, ... ::b. **Were we** to surrender, ... - Subject–auxiliary inversion in condition clause The default order in English is subject–verb (SV), but a number of meaning-related differences (such as those illustrated above) motivate the subject and auxiliary verb to invert so that the finite verb precedes the subject; one ends up with auxiliary–subject (Aux-S) order. That type of inversion fails if the finite verb is not an auxiliary: ::a. **Fred stayed**. ::b. ***Stayed Fred**? - Inversion impossible here because the verb is NOT an auxiliary verb (The star * is the symbol used in linguistics to indicate that the example is grammatically unacceptable.) ### Non-auxiliary subject–verb inversion In languages like Italian, Spanish, Finnish, etc. subject-verb inversion is commonly seen with a wide range of verbs and does not require an element at the beginning of the sentence. See the following Italian example: | è arrivato Giovanni. | is arrived Giovanni | 'Giovanni arrived' }} In English, on the other hand, subject-verb inversion generally takes the form of a Locative inversion. A familiar example of subject-verb inversion from English is the presentational *there* construction. | *There's a shark.* | }} English (especially written English) also has an inversion construction involving a locative expression other than *there* ("in a little white house" in the following example): | *In a little white house lived two rabbits.* | | }} Contrary to the subject-auxiliary inversion, the verb in cases of subject–verb inversion in English is not required to be an auxiliary verb; it is, rather, a full verb or a form of the copula *be*. If the sentence has an auxiliary verb, the subject is placed after the auxiliary and the main verb. For example: ::a. **A unicorn will come** into the room. ::b. Into the room **will come a unicorn**. Since this type of inversion generally places the focus on the subject, the subject is likely to be a full noun or noun phrase rather than a pronoun. Third-person personal pronouns are especially unlikely to be found as the subject in this construction: ::a. Down the stairs **came the dog**. - Noun subject ::b. Down the stairs **came it**. - Third-person personal pronoun as subject; unlikely unless *it* has special significance and is stressed ::c. Down the stairs **came I**. - First-person personal pronoun as subject; more likely, though still *I* would require stress ## In other languages Certain other languages, like other Germanic languages and Romance languages, use inversion in ways broadly similar to English, such as in question formation. The restriction of inversion to auxiliary verbs does not generally apply in those languages; subjects can be inverted with any type of verb, but particular languages have their own rules and restrictions. For example, French can form questions using verb-subject inversions like a Germanic language: *tu aimes le chocolat* is a declarative sentence meaning "you like the chocolate". When the order of the subject *tu* ("you") and the verb *aimes* ("like") is switched, a question is produced: *aimes-tu le chocolat?* ("do you like the chocolate?"). Compare with Norwegian: *du liker* means "you like", whereas *liker du* would mean "do you like". Note that English obeys the same rule despite its use of the auxiliary word "do": It is the position of the finite verb that determines whether the sentence is a question, and the auxiliary verb takes that place. In languages with free word order, inversion of subject and verb or of other elements of a clause can occur more freely, often for pragmatic reasons rather than as part of a specific grammatical construction. ### Locative inversion Locative inversion is a common linguistic phenomenon that has been studied by linguists of various theoretical backgrounds. In multiple Bantu languages, such as Chichewa, the locative and subject arguments of certain verbs can be inverted without changing the semantic roles of those arguments, similar to the English subject-verb inversion examples above. Below are examples from Zulu, where the numbers indicate noun classes, SBJ = subject agreement prefix, APPL = applicative suffix, FV = final vowel in Bantu verbal morphology, and LOC is the locative circumfix for adjuncts. - Canonical word order: | A-bantwana ba-fund-el-a e-sikole-ni. | 2-2.child 2.SBJ-study-APPL-FV LOC:7-7.school-LOC | "The children study at the school."}} - Locative inversion: | I-sikole si-fund-el-a a-bantwana. | 7-7.school 7.SBJ-study-APPL-FV 2-2.child | "The children study at the school." ( "The school studies the children.")}} In the locative inversion example, *isikole*, "school" acts as the subject of the sentence while semantically remaining a locative argument rather than a subject/agent one. Moreover, we can see that it is able to trigger subject-verb agreement as well, further indicating that it is the syntactic subject of the sentence. This is in contrast to examples of locative inversion in English, where the semantic subject of the sentence controls subject-verb agreement, implying that it is a dislocated syntactic subject as well: 1. Down the hill **rolls** the **car**. 1. Down the hill **roll** the **cars**. In the English examples, the verb *roll* agrees in number with *cars*, implying that the latter is still the syntactic subject of the sentence, despite being in a noncanonical subject position. However, in the Zulu example of locative inversion, it is the noun *isikole*, "school" that controls subject-verb agreement, despite not being the semantic subject of the sentence. Locative inversion is observed in Mandarin Chinese. Consider the following sentences: - Canonical word order | **Gǎngshào** zhàn zài **ménkǒu**. | Sentry stand at door | 'At the entrance stands a/the sentry' }} - Locative inversion | **Ménkǒu** zhàn-zhe **gǎngshào**. | Door stand-DUR sentry | 'At the entrance stands a/the sentry' }} In canonical word order, the subject (*gǎngshào* 'sentry') appears before the verb and the locative expression (*ménkǒu* 'door') after the verb. In Locative inversion, the two expressions switch the order of appearance: it is the locative that appears before the verb while the subject occurs in postverbal position. In Chinese, as in many other languages, the inverted word order carry a presentational function, that is, it is used to introduce new entities into discourse. ## Theoretical analyses Syntactic inversion has played an important role in the history of linguistic theory because of the way it interacts with question formation and topic and focus constructions. The particular analysis of inversion can vary greatly depending on the theory of syntax that one pursues. One prominent type of analysis is in terms of *movement* in transformational phrase structure grammars. Since those grammars tend to assume layered structures that acknowledge a finite verb phrase (VP) constituent, they need movement to overcome what would otherwise be a discontinuity. In dependency grammars, by contrast, sentence structure is less layered (in part because a finite VP constituent is absent), which means that simple cases of inversion do not involve a discontinuity; the dependent simply appears on the other side of its head. The two competing analyses are illustrated with the following trees: ::[[File:Inversion trees.jpg|Trees illustrating inversion]] The two trees on the left illustrate the movement analysis of subject-auxiliary inversion in a *constituency-based* theory; a BPS-style (bare phrase structure) representational format is employed, where the words themselves are used as labels for the nodes in the tree. The finite verb *will* is seen moving out of its base position into a derived position at the front of the clause. The trees on the right show the contrasting *dependency-based* analysis. The flatter structure, which lacks a finite VP constituent, does not require an analysis in terms of movement but the dependent *Fred* simply appears on the other side of its head *Will*. Pragmatic analyses of inversion generally emphasize the *information status* of the two noncanonically positioned phrases – that is, the degree to which the switched phrases constitute *given* or familiar information vs. new or informative information. Birner (1996), for example, draws on a corpus study of naturally occurring inversions to show that the initial *preposed* constituent must be at least as familiar within the discourse (in the sense of Prince 1992) as the final *postposed* constituent – which in turn suggests that inversion serves to help the speaker maintain a given-before-new ordering of information within the sentence. In later work, Birner (2018) argues that passivization and inversion are variants, or *alloforms*, of a single argument-reversing construction that, in turn, serves in a given instance as either a variant of a more general preposing construction or a more general postposing construction. The overriding function of inverted sentences (including locative inversion) is presentational: the construction is typically used either to introduce a discourse-new referent or to introduce an event which in turn involves a referent which is discourse-new. The entity thus introduced will serve as the topic of the subsequent discourse. Consider the following spoken Chinese example: |Zhènghǎo tóuli **guò-lai** **yí** **lǎotóur**, | Just ahead pass-come one- old-man |'Right then came over an old man.' }} |zhè lǎotóur, tā zhàn-zhe hái bù dònghuó | this old.man 3S stand- still not move |'this old man, he was standing without moving.' }} The constituent *yí lǎotóur* "an old man" is introduced for the first time into discourse in post-verbal position. Once it is introduced by the presentational inverted structure, it can be coded by the proximal demonstrative pronoun *zhè* 'this' and then by the personal pronoun *tā* – denoting an **accessible referent**: a referent that is already present in speakers' consciousness. ## Notes ## References - Birner, B. 2018. On constructions as a pragmatic category. *Language* 94.2:e158-e179. - Birner, B. 1996. The discourse function of inversion in English. Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics. NY: Garland. - Culicover, P. 1997. Principles and parameters: An introduction to syntactic theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. - Greenbaum, S. and R. Quirk. 1990. A student's grammar of the English language. Harlow, Essex, England: Longman. - Groß, T. and T. Osborne 2009. Toward a practical dependency grammar theory of discontinuities. *SKY Journal of Linguistics* 22, 43-90. - - Ouhalla, J. 1994. Transformational grammar: From rules to principles and parameters. London: Edward Arnold. - Prince, E. F. 1992. The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information-status. In W. C. Mann and S. A. Thompson, *Discourse description: Diverse linguistic analyses of a fundraising text*. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 295-325. - - Quirk, R. S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, and J. Svartvik. 1979. A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman. - Radford, A. 1988. Transformational Grammar: A first course. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. - Radford, A. 2005. English syntax: An introduction. Cambridge University Press. ## References 1. Confusingly, there is a difference in translation of [[René Descartes]]' [[Cogito, ergo sum. famous words]] into different languages: Words for ''therefore'' versus more loose words akin to ''thus''. Most Germanic translators have chosen the ''thus'' word (e.g. Dutch: ''dus'', German/Nordic: ''also/altså/alltså''). For the sake of like-for-like translation and easy recognition by English readers, this table uses the ''therefore'' word like the English translation. 2. [[:no:Cogito ergo sum]] 3. [[:de:Cogito ergo sum]] 4. (15 September 2023). ["Inversion after negative adverbials"](https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/grammar/c1-grammar/inversion-after-negative-adverbials). 5. [[Here Comes the Sun]] 6. (1994). "Information status and word order: an analysis of English inversion". *Language*. 7. (1994). "Locative Inversion and Architecture of Universal Grammar". *Language*. 8. (2005). "Issues in Zulu Morphosyntax". *PhD Dissertation, UCLA*. 9. Lena, L. 2020. Chinese presentational sentences: the information structure of Path verbs in spoken discourse". In: ''Explorations of Chinese Theoretical and Applied Linguistics''. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 10. The movement analysis of subject-auxiliary inversion is pursued, for instance, by Ouhalla (1994:62ff.), Culicover (1997:337f.), Radford (1988: 411ff., 2004: 123ff). 11. Concerning the dependency grammar analysis of inversion, see Groß and Osborne (2009: 64-66). 12. Lambrecht, K., 2000. When subjects behave like objects: An analysis of the merging of S and O in sentence-focus constructions across languages. ''Studies in Language'', 24(3), pp.611-682. ::callout[type=info title="Wikipedia Source"] This article was imported from [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inversion_(linguistics)) and is available under the [Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/). Content has been adapted to SurfDoc format. Original contributors can be found on the [article history page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inversion_(linguistics)?action=history). ::