Inversion (linguistics)

In linguistics, inversion is any of several grammatical constructions where two expressions switch their canonical order of appearance, that is, they invert. In terms of heads and dependents, the dependent switches to the other side of its head. There are a number of distinct types of inversion in English, subject-auxiliary inversion being by far the most frequently occurring. The theoretical analysis of inversion can vary significantly depending in part on whether one chooses a layered constituency-based analysis of sentence structure or a flatter dependency-based analysis. Given flatter structures, inversion does not result in a discontinuity. Inversion can be compared and contrasted to shifting, a similar mechanism that alters canonical order, but that also does not result in a discontinuity given flatter structures.

Syntactic inversion

Subject-auxiliary inversion

The most frequently occurring type of inversion in English is subject-auxiliary inversion. The subject and auxiliary verb invert, i.e. they switch positions, e.g.

Fred will stay.

Will Fred stay?

Fred has helped at no point.

At no point has Fred helped.

The default order is subject-verb (SV) in English, but a number of meaning-related differences motivate the subject and verb to invert so that the finite verb precedes the subject; one ends up with verb-subject (VS) order. Question formation and preposing a negation are two sources that evoke subject-auxiliary inversion. This type of inversion fails if the finite verb is not an auxiliary:

Fred stayed.

*Stayed Fred? (The star * indicates that the sentence is grammatically unacceptable.)

Locative inversion

Locative inversion occurs in Brazilian Portuguese, Mandarin Chinese, Otjiherero, Chichewa, and a number of Germanic and Bantu languages. An adjunct phrase is switched from its default postverbal position to one before the main verb of the clause, which causes the subject and the finite verb to invert. For example:

A lamp was in the corner.

In the corner was a lamp.

Locative inversion can occur when the finite verb is NOT an auxiliary verb (unlike subject-auxiliary inversion):

Only Larry sleeps under that tree.

Under that tree sleeps only Larry.

The fronted expression that evokes locative inversion is an adjunct of location. Locative inversion in modern English is undoubtedly a vestige of the V2 order associated with earlier stages of the language.

Copular inversion

Copular inversion occurs when a predicate expression switches positions with the copula verb, e.g.

The weather is worrisome.

Worrisome is the weather.

Nothing is before the game.

Before the game is nothing.

This type of inversion occurs with a finite form of the copula be. The expression that inverts with the copula is (part of) the predicate, whereby the predicate can be an adjective, a prepositional phrase, etc. However, if the predicate expression is a noun phrase, there can be confusion concerning the subject:

Bill is the plumber.

The plumber is Bill.

Since English predominantly has SV order, it will tend to view whichever noun phrase immediately precedes the finite verb as the subject. Thus in the second sentence here, The plumber is taken as the subject, and Bill as the predicate. But if one acknowledges that copular inversion has occurred, one can argue that Bill is the subject, and The plumber the predicate. This confusion has led to focused study of these types of copular clauses.

Inversion in V2 languages

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. In languages with verb-second phenomena, such as German, inversion can function as a test for syntactic constituency, since precisely one constituent may surface preverbally: Ein Jahr nach dem Autounfall sieht er wirklich gut aus. [lit. A year after the car accident, looks he really good]. This feature also occurs in some other West Germanic languages, like Dutch, where the previous sentence would be Een jaar na het auto-ongeval ziet hij er werkelijk goed uit.

Theoretical analyses

The theoretical 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 these 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 in 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. These two competing analyses are illustrated with the following trees:

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 necessitate an analysis in terms of movement, but rather the dependent Fred simply appears on the other side of its head Will.

Other types of inversion

Thematic inversion

A much different type of inversion occurs when the grammatical subject is not also the thematic agent of the clause. This typically takes the form of verbal arguments that are semantically experiencers but which are marked with an oblique case, but they may or may not have subject properties like the control of reflexives or triggering agreement on the verb. For example, in German and Russian, for verbs meaning to "please", the experiencer is usually fronted to topic position in the sentence: Mir gefällt es, Mne nrávitsya, both "I like it". In both cases, the experiencer cannot be the antecedent for the reflexive: "He likes himself" cannot be *Ihm gefällt sich or *Yemú nrávitsya sebyá. In Georgian, on the other hand, the experiencer agrees with the object on the verb, but can control reflexivization: Me momts'ons čemi tavi.

Feature inversion

A rare (and also quite different type of) inversion involves constructions which are sensitive to feature hierarchies. In Algonquian languages in an agreement context, for example, verbs agree with both subject and object: ne-wāpam-ā-w-a 1-look.at-DIR-3-3Sg 'I looked at him'. However, the person markers do not indicate subject and object status; rather, the set of morphemes called direct or inverse markers do that. When a third person acts on a first person, the person markers remain the same, but the direct marker switches to an inverse marker: ne-wāpam-ekw-w-a 1-look.at-INV-3-3Sg 'He looked at me'.

References

• Groß, Thomas and Timothy Osborne 2009. Toward a practical dependency grammar theory of discontinuities. SKY Journal of Linguistics 22, 43-90.
• Mikkelsen, Line 2005. Copular clauses: Specification, predication, and equation. Linguistics Today 85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Moro, A. 1997. The Raising of Predicates: Predicative noun phrases and the theory of clause structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Radford, Andrew 2005. English syntax: An introduction.Cambridge University Press.

See also

• Constituent (linguistics)
• Dependency grammar
• Finite verb
• Head (linguistics)
• Phrase structure grammar
• Verb phrase