In favour of an underlying SVO analysis

The arguments that Roberts (2005) makes about Welsh syntax are largely based on data from the Literary Welsh dialect.^[1]

The first step in the argument that Roberts (2005) makes for an underlying SVO analysis of Welsh word order is to argue that the subject moves out of the verb phrase to a position higher in the clause. This argument is made on the basis of data from passives, unaccusatives, and raising predicates in Welsh. The derived subjects in all three of these constructions behave like subjects of other predicates in Welsh in that they cannot be separated from the verb. That is, the subject must immediately follow the verb, as can be seen in (1)—(3).

(1) Welsh passive

(2) Welsh unaccusative

(3) Welsh raising predicate

This suggests that the subjects in these three constructions are true subjects. On the assumption that all subjects in the language occupy the same position in the clause, this entails that the subject in Welsh must raise to a higher position in the clause than where it was base generated.^[2]

Another argument for movement of the subject in Welsh comes from reconstruction effects. Barss (1986) noticed that there is an interpretive difference between (4a) and (4b).

(4)	a.		[Which pictures of himselfi/j] does Johni think that Billj would like e
	b.		[Criticize himself*i/j], Johni thinks Billj never would e

In (4a), himself can be interpreted as either coreferential with John or Bill. However, in (4b), it can only be interpreted as coreferential with Bill.

Huang (1993) analyzes these English facts by adopting the VP-Internal Subject Hypothesis and assuming that the subject raises from the verb phrase to a position higher in the clause. That is to say, the structure of (4b) is what is given in (5).

(5)

[ti criticize himselfi], John thinks Billi never would e

The closest c-commanding element that binds the reflexive pronoun, himself, is the trace of Bill (see Principle/Condition A of the binding (linguistics) theory).

The facts in Welsh parallel the facts in English. Specifically, the reflexive in (6a) can be interpreted as coreferential with either John or Bill, whereas the reflexive in (6b) can only be interpreted as coreferential with Bill.

The most straightforward analysis of these facts is to adopt the same analysis that Huang (1993) gives for English. That is to say, if one adopts the VP-internal subject hypothesis and assumes that the subject raises to a higher position in the clause, then an account of these facts is straightforward. Moreover, this suggests that the underlying word order is indeed SVO.^[3]

The second step in the argument that Roberts (2005) gives to motivate an analysis of Welsh word order in which the underlying structure of the clause is SVO and the verb has moved to a higher position in the clause is to observe that the verb appears in a higher position than the subject. If the subject has raised from a VP-internal position, then it follows that the verb must have also raised in order to be in a higher clausal position and to show up to the immediate left of the subject.^[4]

Against an underlying SVO analysis

On the other hand, Borsley (2006) has argued against an underlying SVO analysis with the surface word order derived by verb movement. One of the arguments that he gives against such an analysis is based on negation. In Welsh, the negative adverb ddim cannot be immediately followed by an object noun phrase, as the following examples show.

Borsley (2006) claims that this means the Welsh grammar must have a constraint against ddim appearing next to an object noun phrase. He further argues that it would not be possible to state such a constraint since ddim is not underlyingly next to the object noun phrase if one adopts an underlyingly SVO analysis of Welsh.^[5]

Note that Borsley takes the ddim of a sentence like Welson ni ddim ci "We didn't see a dog" not to be this negative adverb, but a homophonous negative quantifier.^[6]

Noun and adjective complements

One way to equate noun phrases is to use what King (2003) calls "identification forms" of bod, with the word order NP₁ – bod – NP₂

Diffoddwr tân ydy Gwyn.

'Gwyn is a fireman.'

Alternatively, a verb-initial word order may be used, with the "affirmative forms" of bod and a particle yn which triggers the soft mutation: bod – NP₁ – yn+SM – NP₂. This construction has both interrogative and negative variations which utilize different verb-forms and require, in the case of the negative, the addition of ddim "not".

Mae Gwyn yn ddiffoddwr tân.

'Gwyn is a fireman.'

Ydy Gwyn yn ddiffoddwr tân?

'Is Gwyn a fireman?'

Dydy Gwyn ddim yn ddiffoddwr tân.

'Gwyn isn't a fireman.'

The predicative adjective construction uses this same verb-initial construction: bod – NP – yn+SM – adjective.

Mae Gwyn yn ddiflas.

'Gwyn is miserable.'

Ydy Gwyn yn ddiflas?

'Is Gwyn miserable?'

Dydy Gwyn ddim yn ddiflas.

'Gwyn isn't miserable.'

Verb complements

In addition to the inflected preterite, future, and conditional tense forms, Bod - subject - yn - verbnoun (with no mutation) is used to express a range of other times:

• Present:

Mae bws yn dod.

'A bus is coming.'

• Imperfect:

Roedd bws yn dod.

'A bus was coming.'

• Future:

Bydd bws yn dod.

'A bus will be coming.'

• Conditional:

Byddai bws yn dod.

'A bus would be coming.'

• Subjunctive:

Pe bai bws yn dod.

'If a bus were coming.'

While the present and imperfect have special interrogative and negative forms, the future and conditional forms:

• form questions by leniting the verb, and
• form negative statements by adding ddim after the subject, and optionally leniting the verb.

All of these bod constructions may be given perfect meaning by replacing yn with wedi (lit. "after"), while substituting newydd (lit. "newly") for wedi (together with lenition of the verbnoun) expresses what may be termed the immediate perfect ("has just", etc.). Thus:

• Mae Siân yn mynd – 'Siân is going'
• Mae Siân wedi mynd – 'Siân has gone'
• Mae Siân newydd fynd – 'Siân has just gone'

Syntactic complementization

Welsh has a number of complementizers used under different circumstances. Y is used in all non-focused affirmative clauses other than the present periphrastic with bod:

Mae hi'n gwybod y bydd hi'n dod. - 'She knows she's coming.'

Ydy o'n meddwl yr aeth hi i Gaerdydd? - 'Does he think she went to Cardiff?'

The present periphrastic with bod tends to use a construction with the verbnoun bod in a genitival construction with the subject of the subordinate clause:

Rwy'n teimlo eich bod chi'n anhapus. – 'I feel that you are unhappy.' (lit. 'I am feeling your being unhappy')

Negative clauses can be made negative normally or by replacing y with na:

Mi welith hi [fy] mod i ddim yn anhapus. = Mi welith hi na dydw i ddim yn anhapus. - 'She will see that I'm not unhappy.'

Gwn i yr eith hi ddim. = Gwn i nad eith hi. - 'I know she won't go.'

Focused clauses are complementized with mai (in the North) or taw (in the South):

Gwyddost ti mai fi ydy'r gorau. - 'You know that it's me who's the best.'

Focused clauses can be made negative with nad, or made negative normally (with mai nid or mai dim):

Gwyddost ti nad fi ydy'r gorau. = Gwyddost ti mai nid fi ydy'r gorau. = Gwyddost ti mai dim fi ydy'r gorau. - 'You know that it's not me who's the best.'