This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

English Language This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Language, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the English language on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.English LanguageWikipedia:WikiProject English LanguageTemplate:WikiProject English LanguageEnglish Language ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Victor, I think this article should be called simply "subject-verb inversion". Note that it can be expanded to include other languages. The article on inversion can be expanded to include inversion that does not involve finite verbs, e.g. That is talk enough vs. That is enough talk, the laughing man vs. the man laughing, This article can remain with inversion in English and other languages that involves mainly just full verbs. --Tjo3ya (talk) 06:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a very confusing approach. I liked better what we agreed before. The distinction between s-v and s-aux inversion is really something that applies to English specifically. The split between the two types only has justification within the topic of inversion in English. Once that split is made, we need to stick to English and make clear that we are sticking to English. Victor Yus (talk) 07:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not honestly seeing the argument about discontinuities with this type of inversion. It seems far more relevant to s-aux inversion, where the VP is broken up. In this type, is the integrity of the VP not preserved? The subject essentially switches to the other side of the whole VP. In fact there would be more of a discontiniuity without inversion: In the bushes Bill crouched. Victor Yus (talk) 06:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the integrity of the traditional VP is not maintained. The canonical VP contains everything but the subject. See the trees in the article predicate (grammar). In the sentence In the bushes crouched Bill, the string In the bushes crouched can hardly be construed as a VP because the PP in the bushes precedes crouched. Consider in this regard that part of the traditional VP can appear after the subject, e.g. In the bush crouched Bill for a long time. On the traditional binary division of the clause, the finite VP contains everything except the subject, which means for a long time must be part of the VP. I will ponder how the point can be made more clear. --Tjo3ya (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what's happening is actually a reordering of the VP, rather than a discontinuity? (you must admit it's still continuous at least, when it takes the form in the bushes crouched). But such reorderings seem to take place in a variety of situations, and it doesn't seem here as if it's the inversion itself that's necessitating it - if anything, the inversion is helping maintain the integrity of the VP by allowing it at least to remain continuous. Victor Yus (talk) 07:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. Your reasoning cannot save the finite VP constituent in the following example where what should qualify as the traditional VP is in bold: In the bush crouched Bill for a long time. The account in the article is taking it for granted that the reader has some exposure to the literature of phrase structure grammars. In a Government and Binding or Minimalist Program type of approach, all branching is rightward and binary. The trees ALWAYS grow down and to the right. This means that it is impossible to view In the bush crouched as a constituent. The same point is illustrated and discussed a bit in the article on inverse copular constructions. --Tjo3ya (talk) 07:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about a simpler sentence, Bill sometimes crouched? How is that dealt with assuming only right branching? The problem for me is that I'm not seeing how inversion itself is a source of any new problems for these theories (at least, this kind of inversion). Victor Yus (talk) 10:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A simple sentence like Bill sometimes crouched is in no way problematic. The binary division acknowledges the subject Bill and the VP predicate sometimes crouched. Note the unacceptability of a sentence like *Bill in the bushes crouched. If this second sentence were acceptable, then one could indeed view In the bushes crouched in the sentence In the bushes crouched Bill as a VP constituent. --Tjo3ya (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So how do these theories explain the fact that the modifier comes before the verb in "sometimes crouched"? (In any case there are other cases of head-last constructions in English, so the theories must have some way of handling them.) And if there is a problem with In the bushes crouched Bill, then how is it any greater a problem than would exist with the uninverted equivalent: In the bushes Bill crouched? Victor Yus (talk) 07:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your question addresses the distribution of adverbs. The adverb sometimes has a specific distribution. Locative PPs like in the bushes have a different distribution. Each type of adverbial must be examined for its specific distribution. The sentence In the bushes Bill crouched is less problematic because it allows for a straightforward account in terms of topicalization. The PP is topicalized in such a manner that preserves the finite VP constituent. The same can hardly be said of In the bushes crouched Bill because of the accompanying subject-verb inversion. --Tjo3ya (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still don't really see it. The VP constituent ("crouched", presumably) is no less preserved in the inverted sentence than it is in the uninverted one. Victor Yus (talk) 07:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victor, please read the article verb phrase. Take a look at the types of verb phrases. There are finite verb phrases and non-finite verb phrases. The finite verb phrase supposedly contains everything except the subject in a phrase structure grammar. In a dependency grammar, the finite verb phrase does not exist (as a constituent). You may be mixing up your terminology. What you seem to be calling a verb phrase is what most theories of syntax would call a verb or a chain of verbs. The greatest verb phrase in a sentence often contains everything except the subject. --Tjo3ya (talk) 08:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so in the sentence in question, the greatest verb phrase is "crouched in the bushes", right? In that case, in the uninverted sentence In the bushes Bill crouched, the elements of that verb phrase are there, but they are neither canonically ordered nor continuous, right? In the inverted sentence In the bushes crouched Bill, the elements of the verb phrase are there, they are not canonically ordered, but they are continuous. So what is the problem that you regard as being introduced by inversion? Victor Yus (talk) 09:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victor, The problem is that the only way to maintain the existence of the canonical VP is through major stipulation, as illustrated in the article. You have to introduce movement leftward and upward on a massive scale. The analysis you are suggesting has not been proposed to my knowledge. Since the sentence *Bill in the bushes crouched is bad, there is no way to view the sequence in the bushes crouched as a finite VP. That word order never appears in sentences that lack inversion.

I think one needs to understand that the issue simply does not arise if there is no finite VP constituent present, because there is no reason to view crouched in the bushes as a constituent to begin with. --Tjo3ya (talk) 09:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand the last point; I'm not really proposing any analysis either, I'm just observing that the problems with the theory (assuming we consider such movement to be a problem) are arising as a result of in the bushes being moved to the front, not as a result of the subject-verb inversion itself. Victor Yus (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NO. The problem is directly due to the presence of subject-verb inversion. Moving in the bushes to the front is a small problem because topicalization is easily capable of doing that without challenging the existence of the finite VP-constituent: In the bushes, Bill crouched. Just one instance of movement is needed. But as soon as you add subject-verb inversion, the amount of movement doubles, because you have to assume either that the verb also moves leftward and upward, as illustrated in the article, or that in the bushes moves leftward and upward out of the VP that has just been fronted. And when one consider more complex examples, the number of movements explodes, as illustrated with the marijuana-example. And then there are examples where the elements of the VP are discontinuous, e.g. In the bushes crouched Bill for a long time.

Note further that the analysis you suggested would require two instances of inversion, one for subject-verb inversion and one inside the VP, where in the bushes inverts with crouched. The problem with this second instance of inversion is that it would have to be somehow reliant on the presence of subject-verb inversion. There is no independent evidence that such inversion can occur in the VP. The very fact that the second instance of inversion would be reliant on the presence of subject-verb inversion is what challenges the analysis you suggest. --Tjo3ya (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So if the magic word "topicalization" explains the fronting of in the bushes in the uninverted case, then why can it not do so in the inverted case? The only movement you would then have left is the inversion of subject and verb (and presumably these theories don't forbid that - the people who dreamt them up must know some English grammar). Victor Yus (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victor, I share your skepticism about many of the "dreamt-up" theories of syntax. My skepticism, however, is directed at the mainstream phrase structure grammars. Those theories need too many unseen structure alterring mechanisms in order to arrive at surface order.

Something like what you suggest has to happen, yes. There has to be at least two instances of movement/inversion, and these inversions have to occur at different levels of the hierarchy. What follow are three possible ways of arriving at the correct word order:

First possibility 1. Fronting of verb: Bill crouched in the bushes → Crouched Bill in the bushes 2. Topicalization of PP: Crouched Bill in the bushes → In the bushes crouched Bill

Second possibility 1. Subject-VP inversion: Bill crouched in the bushes → Crouched in the bushes Bill 2. Verb-PP inversion: Crouched in the bushes Bill → In the bushes crouched Bill

Third possibility 1. Subject-verb inversion: Bill crouched in the bushes → Crouched Bill in the bushes 2. Topicalization of PP: Crouched Bill in the bushes → In the bushes crouched Bill

The first analysis is essentially the one that is prominent in phrase structure grammars. Something like the second analysis is what you are suggesting. The second analysis is challenged in a major way, for there is no evidence to assume that Verb-PP inversion is possible because the order in the bushes crouched never occurs independently, e.g. *Bill in the bushes crouched. The third possibility is not available (if a finite VP is present) because the subject and verb are on distinct levels of the hierarchy, which means they cannot simply invert.

Something like the second possibility becomes possible if no finite VP is present, because the subject and verb will be equi-level (in a phrase structure grammar), which would allow them to invert without altering the basic hierarchy of the tree. --Tjo3ya (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm starting to see more clearly, but would a fourth possibility (and the one I would intuitively suggest) not be:

1. Topicalization of PP: Bill crouched in the bushes → In the bushes Bill crouched

2. Subject-verb inversion: In the bushes Bill crouched → In the bushes crouched Bill

I don't see that s-v inversion can be excluded by any serious theory, since its creators must surely have taken account at least of subject-auxiliary inversion in simple questions (and in that case it's even more clear that the would-be VP is broken up). Victor Yus (talk) 10:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, what you suggest is really not possible because the subject and verb are on different levels of the hierarchy. There is no way for the two to simply invert. Interestingly however, if we replace your second step with subject-VP inversion, then we get the same result for our example because the PP has already been moved out of the VP.

But your suggestion does not work if something else remains in the VP, e.g.

Bill crouched in the bushes for a long time.

Topicalization of in the bushes: In the bushes Bill crouched for a long time.

Subject-VP inversion: *In the bushes crouched for a long time Bill.

The difficulties we are wrangling with are due to the presence of the finite VP constituent. This constituent puts the subject and the finite verb on separate levels of the hierarchy. The finite verb appears below the subject. Because they are on separate levels, they cannot simply invert, because that would entail that the subject moves downward into the verbs position and the verb moves upward into the subject position. Downward movement is not generally acknowledged. The problem disappears if the finite VP is absent because the subject and verb are now on the same level of the hierarchy. The can easily swap positions (invert). --Tjo3ya (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So how do the theories deal with ordinary subject-auxiliary inversion? Is that not a problem for the same reason? Victor Yus (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most people call is he mad? subject-verb inversion, and on the tree sat John subject-complement or subject-predicate inversion. This article reflects a particular sub-branch of linguistics, which is great in itself, but this article will baffle most others and contradict established terminology. Cerberus™ (talk) 13:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cerberus, Your example Is he mad? is an instance of subject-auxiliary inversion, and that is what I think many linguists/grammarians would call it. Note that the copula be is seen as an auxiliary verb by many (since it behaves like an auxiliary verb in the ways that count). Examples such as On the tree sat John are widely known as locative inversion; I'm certain about that. Your comment that what is called subject-verb inversion here in the article is actually called subject-complement inversion or subject-predicate inversion is interesting. Who calls it that? Can you give me a source or two that call it that? I will check it out and adjust the article accordingly. Do you have other comments or suggestions? I'd like to see that negative tag removed from the article.

Article claims that weak definite pronouns don't participate in S-V inversion. But " '...', said he" is acceptable. Perhaps this is simply a fossilized phrase? --Macrakis (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The example sounds quite stilted to me (..., said he). I doubt that it is used productively by many. Can you point to where it is used in modern texts, for instance in modern journalism? If it is in fact used productively, then the article should be altered to accommodate such data. --Tjo3ya (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is stylistically marked as archaic. It was more popular in the 19th century, I suspect (example). I tried to use the Google ngrams search [said he _END_] to get some stats, but I'm not sure I believe the results. A bit of searching in Google Books finds a fantasy novel Savages of Gor which uses 'said he' pretty often. --Macrakis (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Old King Cole was a merry old soul, and a merry old soul was he!" Definitely marked stylistically, but I feel it's still an available and productive option. Obstruction (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Under her bed have been found twice remnants of marijuana consumption -- I am not convinced that the multiple movement analysis that is given in the article would be acceptable in a transformational grammar. Doesn't this rather look like rightward movement of a heavy subject NP? Movement of nonfinite Verbs or of adverbials like "twice" is not usually assumed in the generative syntax of English. 84.160.35.43 (talk) 10:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think such data are beyond the scope of what a traditional transformational syntax can handle. The main problem lies with the position of the subject after all the verbs. The architecture of most transformational grammars assumes the subject is generated first in a position to the left of the lexical verb. On such an account, massive movement is necessary to achieve the correct surface order, as pointed out in the article and in the discussion above on this page. Believing in the existence of all the transformations requires a leap of faith (that I personally am not ready to make).

Yes, an analysis is in terms of heavy-constituent shift strikes me as more promising. The order of constituents appearing after the verb(s) is influenced by syntactic weight. Heavy constituents appear to the right of their lighter co-sister constituents.--Tjo3ya (talk) 07:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At least the heavy-NP shift / extraposition analysis should be listed in the article, which is undoubtedly biased right now against standard generative syntax. The mere existence of this analysis, and the independent evidence for it, makes the current content of the article somewhat irresponsible. In addition, I'm not even convinced that the given example above is that good --- without a citation from the literature, does this really belong on the same page as standard instances of locative inversion? I don't think so. Psejenks (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article at present is formulated in a manner that is critical of standard generative grammar. Here's a key point for me, however: I'm not aware that generative syntax has produced an analysis of such data. In fact, my sense of generative syntax is that it avoids discussions of such data, precisely because such data are difficult to address. Concerning the acceptability of such examples, I agree that a citation would be good, since I agree that such cases are strongly marked. I know, however, that I have encountered such sentences. --Tjo3ya (talk) 23:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a native speaker of American English, I find this sentence a little unusual but certainly not impossible. What's more, the b. version is not, to my mind, necessarily an inversion at all. To me, "Our rep is Bill." is a normal-order response to a question such as "Who is your rep?" or especially to "Our rep is John; who is yours?"211.225.33.104 (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph about directive inversion claims that "the pre-verb expression denotes a location", but I wonder if that is entirely correct. Could I say (sorry for the terrible examples):

• "From our dreams comes the truth"
• "In the dawn of time lived the strangest creatures"
• "In the future lie all my hopes"
• "From this theorem follow amazing mathematical results"

etc. I am not sure about the correctness of any of these sentences (which all sound odd to me, but not completely incorrect), and I can't find any reference validating or invalidating them, so I'm submitting them to discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.24.53 (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why the leftward movement analysis of locative inversion in the marijuana example would require more than two moved constituents (let alone five). Is this not an acceptable 2-move solution?

Remnants of marijuana consumption [VP have been found [PP under her bed] twice].

=> [VP have been found [PP under her bed] twice] remnants of marijuana consumption [VP].

=> [PP under her bed] [VP have been found [PP] twice] remnants of marijuana consumption [VP].

I think a case that is harder to account for with few moves is the one where "twice" occurs after the subject. (unless "have been found under her bed" can be argued to be a constituent without "twice", or "twice" is somehow rightward-shifted.) Dijekjapen (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do examples b and c in the Multiple verbs section sound incorrect to anyone else? Most of the examples on this page make sense, but these two sound quite awkward to me as a speaker of Midwestern American English. 75.169.137.38 (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Omissions:

1. Interrogative adverbs that begin a sentence (or clause), e.g., "Why is the sky blue?" or "How are you?"
2. Locative adverbs as predicative expressions that begin a sentence (or clause), e.g., "Here is your answer" or "There you go."
3. Interrogative auxiliary verbs that precede a subject that intervenes the auxiliary verb and finite verb; e.g., "Did you like the movie?" or "May I help you?"

I'd add this stuff myself if I had more time. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 17:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]