# When linearization triggers embedded V2 Evidence from Breton

Mélanie Jouitteau

► To cite this version:

Mélanie Jouitteau. When linearization triggers embedded V2 Evidence from Breton. Carnie, Hammond, Ohala, Hunter, Irizarry, and Prins. Foundational Approaches to Celtic Linguistics, 1 (1), 2025. hal-04679412

HAL Id: hal-04679412

https://hal.science/hal-04679412v1

Submitted on 27 Aug 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
When linearization triggers embedded V2

Evidence from Breton

Mélanie Jouitteau, CNRS

melanie.jouitteau@iker.cnrs.fr

**Abstract:**

In this paper, I present a specific subset of Breton embedded verb-second word orders. These data are particularly intriguing because they implicate operations in embedded domains that appear optional, whereas we know from the study of matrix clauses that the paradigms they take from are non-optional last-resort for V2. I will show that a proper ordering of operations at the pronunciation interface can ascribe optionality to a dialectal parameter that allows for the exclusion of high functional heads from the initial of a linearization domain. If and only if a functional head is excluded, will we observe last-resort operations for T2. This ordering of operations is significant for our study of the modularity of grammar, because linearization of the syntactic structure can be shown to precede a set of morphological operations which operate in a linear domain.

**I. Introduction**

Breton offers an excellent empirical domain for this study due to its linear T2 word order, as detailed subsequently. The matrix word order in Breton is consistently verb-second: the tensed element typically follows another constituent. In compound tenses, the second position is defined relative to Finiteness and Tense, justifying the acronym T2. In this article, the finite element subject to second position placement will be highlighted in bold, while the element fulfilling this rule will be underlined. For example, in the matrix of (1a), the subject *tout an dud* ‘everybody’ precedes a tensed lexical verb. This subject can be permuted with the object *keuz* ‘regret’, replaced by an adverb, or even a syntactic head. In the embedded domain of (1a), the tensed element is the second constituent following a complementizer, which lacks a phonological matrix. This is not surprising – it aligns with extensive evidence that the T2 requirement may be satisfied by a syntactic head, such as negation, or by a phonologically empty element like omitted topics. The alternate word order in (1b) is particularly intriguing. It involves an additional derivational step through stylistic fronting. The puzzle lies in the observation that the comparison between (1a) and (1b) suggests the optional nature of participle head movement. Nonetheless, a defining characteristic of stylistic fronting in Breton is its role as a last resort mechanism to ensure the second placement of the tensed element.

(1a. *Tout an dud o d-eus keuz _ e n-eus lennet Alain an dra-se.*
all the people Fin.3pl 3-aux regret C Fin 3-aux.pres read.ptcp Alain the thing-there
‘Everyone regrets that Alain read this thing.’

b. *Tout an dud o d-eus keuz _ lennet e n-eus* Alain an dra-se.
all the people Fin.3pl 3-aux.pres regret C read.ptcp Fin 3-aux.pres read.ptcp Alain the
thing-there

‘Everyone regrets that Alain read this thing.’

Leon (Plougerne), M-L. B. (05/2018)
The data from Breton was gathered through a series of 14 elicitation sessions conducted between 2015 and 2018, involving three traditional native speakers from distinct Breton dialects. These speakers, all over 70 years of age, were raised primarily speaking Breton with French as their early second language. They are referred to by their chosen names or acronyms. The first speaker, Huguette Gaudart from Skaer and Bannaleg, is proficient in both the East Kerne dialect and Standard Breton. The other two speakers, M.-L.B. from Plougerne and A.M. from Lesneven/Kerlouan, each represent a variation point in the Leon dialect. They both have minimal influence from other dialects, including Standard Breton. At the time of the elicitation, the speakers were already familiar with the linguist from previous sessions and were accustomed to providing grammaticality judgments. The elicitation protocol involved translation tasks from French. The responses were transcribed in front of the speakers using the orthography of their preference. Following this, the speakers were asked to evaluate the grammaticality of various word permutations that altered the sentence they had originally provided. Comprehensive documentation of the raw elicitation data, along with a detailed description of the elicitation processes, is available online at the Elicitation Center of the wikigrammar ARBRES (Jouitteau 2009-2024).

The structure of this article is as follows.

In the first section, we establish a theoretical framework for the analysis of T2 in Breton. This includes a detailed description of the architecture of the left periphery in Breton clauses, along with a summary of relevant research results on the phenomena of second placement within the matrix domain.

The second section introduces the pivotal dataset. I present novel data from the Breton Kerne and Leon dialects, documenting a range of unexpected embedded V2 orders. A complementizer is always fine as the first element of the embedded (C-VSO), but sometimes in Leon we find intervening heads (C-X-VSO). The paradigms they come from are last-resort of T2 in matrix domains (expletive insertion, stylistic fronting, analytic tenses). I show the limitations on these rare data before turning to their analysis.

The third section presents, and subsequently refutes, the hypothesis that embedded T2 orders can be fundamentally considered as root clauses with a relaxed syntactic integration. This section demonstrates that the embedded T2 domain exhibits weak island effects. Our arguments are supported by evidence from the C-condition, quantifier binding, and the deictic interpretation of temporal nouns. On this ground, I reject for Breton the hypothesis of Wurmbrand (2012, 2014) : embedded T2 domains are fully integrated into the syntactic structure.

The fourth section examines matrix and embedded evidence for the linearization of high complementizers and clause external heads. Remarkably, even Breton clause-external heads can be mobilized to pass the T2 filter.

A final section concludes, and opens on an appendix about the attachment of adjuncts and their interplay with word order in Tense second languages.

## II. Breton in the typology of V2 languages

The sentences in example (2) illustrate a classic paradigm for second-position phenomena. A constituent occupies the initial position of the clause, followed by the inflected element, with the remaining arguments succeeding these. These sentences are semantically equivalent, differing only in their discourse effects. Breton hence qualifies as a V2 language (Stephens 1982), a class of languages that consistently show the same paradigms (for a detailed typology of those languages, see Jouitteau 2010).
(2)a. <u>Warc'hoazh</u> <b>e preno</b> Yann ul levr d'am c'hoar ____ Adv
 tomorrow Fin buy.fut.3sg Yann a book to my sister tomorrow
 'Yann will buy a book for my sister TOMORROW.'

b. <u>Ul levr</u> <b>a breno</b> Yann ____ d'am c'hoar warc'hoazh. O
 a book Fin buy.fut.3sg Yann a book to my sister tomorrow
 'Yann will buy A BOOK for my sister tomorrow.'

c. <u>Yann</u> <b>a breno</b> ____ ul levr d'am c'hoar warc'hoazh. S
 Yann Fin buy.fut.3sg Yann a book to my sister tomorrow
 'YANN will buy a book for my sister tomorrow.'

d. Warc'hoazh, <u>Yann</u> <b>a breno</b> ____ ul levr d'am c'hoar ____ S
tomorrow Yann Fin buy.fut.3sg Yann a book to my sister tomorrow
 'Yesterday, YANN will buy a book for my sister tomorrow.'

*Standard Breton*

Inside the typology of V2 languages, the Breton data reveal certain specific features like a wide left-periphery (2d.), and some Celtic-specific features such as argument ordering (in the middle field, subjects precede objects, VSO) and a particle, either *a* or *e*, that consistently precedes the tensed element. It is glossed here as ‘Fin’, the head of the Finite projection. Unlike in Romance or Germanic languages then, the lowest head in the articulated CP periphery is morphologically realized. This property facilitates the structural placement of the finite verb inside the syntactic structure, in both matrix and embedded sentences.

## II.1 The structure of the left-periphery

The Fin particle invariably precedes only the tensed element, and is absent before infinitives, participles, or in small clauses. It manifests solely as *a /a/* or *e /e/*. However, higher complementizers, such as negation, may fuse with it. In Standard Breton, as illustrated above, these particles alternate based on the +/- nominal category of the preceding element (Rezac, 2004). For instance, in (2b,c,d), the particle *a* follows a nominal element, while in (2a), the particle *e* follows a non-nominal element. These particles are typically unstressed and often omitted in normal speech tempo, though speakers are aware of the unpronounced particle. Each particle, whether pronounced or not, induces a specific mutation in the subsequent word. For example, the particle *a* in (2b,c,d) consistently causes lenition, changing the initial consonant of the inflected verb *prenañ* ‘to buy’ to a /b-/. Conversely, the particle *e* in (2a) triggers a set of mixed mutations, leaving the initial /p-/ in this instance unaffected.

Another contrast with Germanic T2 languages is that the Breton verb consistently raises in all tensed sentences. Importantly, the phonological realization of a C head above the verb does not influence verb raising. Verb-raising occurs not only in T2 constructions but also in the (comparatively extremely rare) Tense initial sentences in Breton, as well as in embedded clauses. The modelization of the trigger for T2 requirement is delineated further in Jouitteau (2020), under the term of Left Edge Filling Trigger. I present here only the properties that will turn relevant for the study of embedded domains. The filter applying at linearization is as in (3). The domain to be linearized is maximally structured as illustrated in (4).

(3) A Fin head can be linearized if and only if it is not initial.
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>(4) Structure of the Breton left-periphery</figcaption></figure>

In the diagram shown in (4) in matrix sentences, only a coordination marker can be merged above the C line. The region between the C and B lines represents the higher projections of the CP area. This area can be empty or heavily populated. It is recursive. It may include a hanging topic, often followed by a prosodic break. It can also encompass adverbs and clauses that serve as scene-setting material as in (2d). The T2 requirement is entirely blind to this high left periphery located between the C and B lines. Empirically, hanging topics are never the only element preceding the tensed one. Scene-setting adverbs can, but only when they are focalized, and thus in fact positioned below the B line. Placement below the B line obtains a discourse difference and restricts scene-setting adverbs to a focus reading.

The expansive space between the B and C lines in Breton permits variations up to T6 orders. This makes the Breton T2 distinctly different from the strict T2 order found in Norwegian. Consequently, Breton is categorized as an “at least T2” type, similar to the patterns observed in Old Romance, Rhaeto-Romance, Karitiana (Arikém), and the Germanic languages Mòcheno or Cimbrian. This categorization is supported by the work of Bidese et al. (2014), as well as Jouitteau (2010) and Jouitteau (2009-2024), who discuss the concept of Breton ‘T3 orders’ and provide relevant references. In embedded domains, this area is expected to be reduced.

Every element situated below this, between the B line and the A line, engages with the T2 requirement and can be the only pronounced element before a tensed head, as illustrated in the previous examples. Notably, in Breton, the syntactic heads located between the B line and the A line can also function as the sole initial element of a sentence. This property that will show crucial for the inquiry of embedded domains.
## II.2 Breton T2 is linear

Breton instantiates *linear verb second*, as described by Borsley & Kathol (2000), Jouitteau (2020) and references therein. This terminology underlines the fact that the T2 requirement is blind to the [+/- head] distinction. Initial functional heads can be Q particles (6), preverbal negation (7), and even some C particles that are integrated into the verbal morphology (8). The latter case is predominantly observed with the verb *emañ*, which raises beyond the Fin head, reaching up to the C head of the ForceP projection. Additionally, a rare instance of verb-first word order is given in (9). Here, an epenthetic *h-* is present at the beginning of the verbal root. This is likely the morphological residue of an ancient epenthetic consonant, induced by a complementizer that ends in a vowel, as illustrated in the phrase (*Ec'h an da ... 'I'm going to...').<fnref n="1" />

(6) *Hag ez eo* gwir an dra-se?
Q Fin aux.3sg true the thing-here
'Is this true?'

(7) *(Yann ha Lisa) ne brenint* ket al levr d'am c'hoar warc'hoazh.
Yann and Lisa neg buy.fut.3pl neg the book to my sister tomorrow
'Yann and Lisa will not buy the book for my brother tomorrow.'

(8) *Emañ* Yann ha Lisa o prenañ ul levr d'am c'hoar.
C.be.3sgf Yann and Lisa at buy.inf a book to my sister
'Yann and Lisa are buying a book for my brother.'

(9) *'Han* da brenañ ul levr d'am c'hoar.
C.go.1sg to buy.inf a book to my sister
'I will buy a book for my brother.'

So far we have seen only examples where the element before Tense was either imposed by the numeration (a Q head, a Neg head, a Force head when it is morphologically integrated into a verb), or by an obligatory movement due to the information structure (preverbal movement of a wh- phrase or another focalized element, generation of a topic). The most striking property of the Breton T2 requirement is observed when none of those elements appear in the numeration. This context reveals a wide array of last resort strategies obtaining T2.

## II.3 Markers of last-resort operations

The proper context for observing the last resort operations for T2 is within positive, affirmative, matrix wide-focus sentences, the structures of which are exemplified from examples (10) to (13). The sentence in example (10) demonstrates expletive insertion, where the expletive *Bez'* manifests as a morphological abbreviation of the verb 'to be'. Note that in (10), none of the verb's arguments are omitted, a sign that we are observing a transitive expletive. Example (11) showcases the productive paradigm of Stylistic Fronting, also referred to in the literature on Slavic languages as Long Head Movement, characterized by a fronted participle head crossing over a finite auxiliary in the derivation (Borsley, Rivero and Stephens 1996, and references therein). The structure in example (12) represents an analytical tense using dummy 'do' insertion, while the structure in example (13) is essentially analogous to it, but featuring verb-doubling.<fnref n="2" />

(10) *Bez' en deus* prenet Yann ul levr d'am c'hoar.
expl Fin.3sgm aux.3sg buy.ptcp Yann a book to my sister

<footnote n="1">¹ See also the matrix verb of (18) below.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Jouitteau (2012) derives (12) and (13) by excorporation of the lexical verb out of the Fin complex, followed by erasure (12) or pronunciation (13) of the lowest copy. The lexical verb in these analytical tenses in never found lower in the structure, after the tensed element, which is support for the last-resort excorporation analysis.</footnote>
'Yann has bought a book for my brother.'

(11) <u>Prenet en deus</u> _ Yann ul levr d'am c'hoar.
buy.ptcp Fin.3sgm aux.3sg buy.ptcp Yann a book to my sister
'Yann has bought a book for my brother.'

(12) <u>Prenañ a ra</u> Yann ul levr d'am c'hoar.
buy.inf Fin do pres.3sg Yann a book to my sister
'Yann buys a book for my brother.'

(13) <u>Gouzout a ouzon</u> ar wirionez.
know.inf Fin know pres.1sg the truth
'I know the truth.'

All the structures in (10) to (13) appear in pragmatic contexts lacking focus on an individual
constituent.<fnref n="3" /> Each serves as a valid response to questions of the *What happened?* variety. However,
in terms of information structure, the sentences under consideration are not strictly equivalent. The
structures observed in examples (11) and (12) are obligatorily backgrounded. In contrast, the
structures in examples (10) and (13) typically exhibit a *verum focus*. This focus emphasizes the
truthfulness of the entire sentence. The scope of this focus encompasses the sentence in its entirety.

The sentences presented in examples (10) to (13) are all derived from mechanisms employed as a last resort to satisfy the Tense-second requirement. This requirement is characterized as a prohibition against placing Tense or Fin at the beginning of a linear sentence, as represented in (14a). The hypothesis that the mechanism filling the empty position in (14a) is a last-resort strategy whose various results are observed in (10) to (13), leads to several accurate predictions. The structures observed in (10) to (13) are incompatible with focus of any argument—banning of course wh-questions—, with topic, or with negation. Furthermore, each structure in (10) to (13) is mutually exclusive with the others.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>b. embedded clause</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

Now under the assumption that embedded domains begin with a complementizer, this
complementizer should uniformly fulfill the Tense-second (T2) linear requirement, as shown in
example (14b). Empirically speaking, documenting embedded domains with any structures akin to
those in examples (10) through (13) would imply that the complementizer, for some reason, failed to
linearize in the expected position, which in turn triggered last resort T2 operations. Understanding
the underlying reasons for this phenomenon could markedly advance our comprehension of the
embedding process in grammatical theory. The subsequent section will summarize prior findings on
the grammar modules at play.

<footnote n="3">³ More examples are provided in Jouitteau (2009-2024) on the pages on ‘Bez’ and ‘verb-doubling’.</footnote>
## II.4 Post-syntactic morphology and linearization

We have evidence suggesting that the operation responsible for positioning the initial element in its place in examples (10) to (13) occurs in a morphological module whose input is the output of syntactic operations, in the PF branch. The last-resort effects are invisible for interpretation. They violate syntactic rules. Specifically, the initial element in example (11) contravenes the head-movement constraint (Travis 1984) by allowing a head to cross over another head in the derivation process. In example (10), merge of the transitive expletive has no impact on interpretation, not even indirectly like via a restriction on the definiteness of an argument. In (12), pronunciation of the infinitive verb before Tense makes no difference with a synthetic verb on the semantic interface. Auxiliary insertion is equally imperceptible to semantic interpretation, and independently suggests a morphological module. Lastly, verb-doubling, as observed in example (13), is confined to a specific set of verbs that do not constitute a syntactic class, and show morphological idiosyncrasies, as argued by Jouitteau (2012).<fnref n="4" /> Rivero (1999, 2000) first proposed that Breton Tense-second results from a filter operating after syntax. She identified this module as the phonological form (PF). This hypothesis is on the right track, but is empirically incorrect: the last-resort operations for T2 are followed by morphological operations. The mechanism responsible for the initial element is located in a grammatical module capable of processing categorical distinctions. The preverbal particle, glossed as 'Fin' in our examples, is responsive to the [+/- nominal] category of the initial element.<fnref n="5" /> In my prior research (Jouitteau 2011, 2012, 2020), I have suggested that the T2 requirement amounts to morphological exponence operating at the clause level. This requirement operates after syntax, in a module where non-syntactic operations can be dealt with: excorporation (12, 13), inversion (11), idiosyncrasy (13), auxiliary insertion (12), copy deletion (12) and non-deletion (13). These operations are extremely local (inversion, excorporation), and linear in nature. The derivation of Breton clauses is recapitulated in (15). Breton is typologically consistent with the other Celtic languages in its syntax: at the level of syntax, Breton is VSO like any other Celtic language. A language specific morphological requirement operating at the level of the clause, historically gained by contact with Romance T2, imposes that Fin is not initial.

(15) a. Breton has a morphological obligatory exponence operating at the scale of clauses

b. It applies to matrix clauses and embedded alike.

c. This filter operates after syntax and before PF, in a module that can manipulate [+/- nominal] categories, proceed to linear inversion of elements, excorporation and handle morphological support like external merge of dummy auxiliaries or expletives.

The generalization in (15c) leads to the suspicion that the last resort operations for T2 happen during the linearization process of the Fin phrase. The invisibility of Hanging topics and scene setting adverbs between the B and C lines in (4) is tentatively correlated with to the sensitivity of of this linearization process to prosody. If the linearization process is prosody sensitive, then we could correctly obtain the desired prediction that the obligatory exponence is blind to the domains that are prosodically isolated. I leave this for further research. We now are equipped to step into the embedded domains.

## III. Troubles in linear T2 embeddings

<footnote n="4">⁴ Verb-doubling is also idiosyncratic. Speakers differ in the verbs they double. Not all speakers are doublers. The Leon speaker MLB for example never does.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ This phenomenon is not uniformly evident across all dialects. Only in the dialects of Leon, Standard, and Gwened do the Fin heads consistently alternate based on the [+/- nominal] category of the preceding constituent. In this article, embedded T2 orders are from Leon and show robust alternations depending on categorical distinctions.</footnote>
Embedded domains are initiated by a C head. Our observations indicate that Breton functions as a linear T2 language wherein functional heads can fulfill T2 requirements. Consequently, it is predicted that the linearization of wide focus embedded sentences should consistently follow a C-Fin-VSO pattern.<fnref n="6" /> Consequently, employing last-resort T2 strategies should be found uniformly ungrammatical across these embedded domains.

This prediction generally holds true, and definitely is in standard. Our Kerne speaker Huguette Gaudart strongly opposes any form of embedded stylistic fronting, as exemplified in example (16) – here with a phonologically null Fin head. This stance applies both to her native Skaer dialect of Kerne and her proficient standard dialect of the language. This generalization has been found consistently valid for her across various types of complementizers. Her C-Fin-VSO orders never accommodate optional alternations with structures such as presented in examples (10) to (13).

(16)a. N' uion ket ma 'n-eus lennet al levr.
C.neg know.pres.lsg neg if Fin 3-aux read.ptcp the book
'I don't know if she has read the book.'

b.*N' uion ket ma lennet 'n-eus al levr.
C.neg know.pres.lsg neg if read.ptcp Fin 3.aux read.ptcp the book
'I don't know if she has read the book.'

Kerne (Skaer/Banaleg), H. Gaudart (04/2016b)

Surprisingly, the speakers of the Leon dialect exhibit sporadic exceptions and allow for structures equivalent to (16b). In the remainder of this section, we will first examine this evidence. We will next address the limitations of this evidence.

### III. 1. Evidence for embedded expletive strategies

In example (17a), the word order resembles that in (16), where the *ma* complementizer leads a conventional linear T2 order. In contrast, example (17b) exhibits stylistic fronting, also grammatical for the speaker. Some caution is in order in this specific example because my conclusion is dependent on the generalisation that the speaker has Aux-V-S orders (*Ma 'n-eo renket an amezog...*) before inversion of the auxiliary and the verb. The grammaticality of this specific structure however could not be empirically verified during the research protocol : the speaker gave Aux-S-V in (17a). The analysis that (17b) involves stylistic fronting proper, and not remnant movement that has different properties, is predicated on the assumption that the past participle has undergone derivation at an intermediary stage, positioned immediately after the Tense head. This assumption however appears here plausible, given that this speaker consistently permits participles to precede a lexical subject in the middle field in other instances.

(17)a. Ma 'n-eo an amezog renket e wele ne hellan ket lavaret dit !
if Fin 3sg-aux.fut the neighbour tidy.ptcp his bed neg can.lsg neg tell.inf you
'Whether the neighbor will have made his bed, I can't tell you!'

b. Ma renket 'n-eo an amezog e wele ne hellan ket lavaret dit !

if tidy.ptcp Fin 3sg-aux.fut tidy.ptcp the neighbour tidy.ptcp his bed neg can.lsg neg tell.inf you
'Whether the neighbour will have made his bed, I can't tell you!'

Leon (Plougerne), M-L. B. (05/2018)

<footnote n="6">⁶ Some embedded domains are known to show an exceptionally wide left-periphery, like those headed by *rak* 'because', and those who tolerate focus or even hanging topics hosted in their wide left-periphery. Their word order is basically that of root clauses. These complementizers never lead to C-Fin-VSO orders. We will not consider these structures here.</footnote>
The sentences in (18) replicate the findings with the tense complementizer *pa* ‘when’.

(18)a. **Pa m-eus** kleet **ar janson-se** evit ar wech kentañ, eved-on dougeres.
When 1sg-aux hear.ptcp the song-there for the time first C.aux.past-1sg pregnant
‘When I first heard this song, I was pregnant.’

b. Pa *kleet* **m-eus** ar janson-se evit ar wech kentañ, eved-on dougeres.
when hear.ptcp 1sg-aux hear.ptcp the song-there for the time first C.aux.past-1sg pregnant
‘When I first heard this song, I was pregnant.’

Leon (Plougerne), M-L. B. (05/2018)

The sentences in (19) replicate the findings with another Leon speaker and another last-resort strategy: an analytic tense like in (11).

(19)a. Bevañ a r-eomp un amzer *hag e hoar* ar vugale
live.inf Fin do-pres.1pl a time that Fin know.3sg the child.pl
diouzh an ordinatourien muioc'h eget o zud.
of the computers more than their parents
‘We live a time where children know more about computers than their parents.’

b. Bevañ a r-eomp un amzer ha *gouzout a r-a* ar vugale
live.inf Fin do-pres.1pl a time that know.inf Fin do-3sg the child.pl
diouzh an ordinatourien muioc'h eget o zud.
of the computers more than their parents
‘We live a time where children know more about computers than their parents.’

Leon (Lesneven/Kerlouan), A. M. (05/2016)

The following examples replicate the findings with a declarative C head, likely the ForceP projection's head. This element is phonologically null. It is this silent complementizer that typically selects clausal complements in most Breton dialects, creating an apparent radical Tense-first order on the surface. The sentence in (20a) demonstrates that this C head alone can fulfil the T2 requirement. Embedded stylistic fronting is also a possibility, as shown in (20b). Within the clausal complement of a noun, as seen in (21), the C can either precede the verb directly or allow the insertion of an expletive, as in (21a), where the *bed* morpheme is a dialectal variation of the transitive expletive *bez*', which was previously mentioned in (10). An analytic tense form, similar to what was illustrated in (12), represents another option, as evidenced in (21b) and in (22).

(20)a. Amelia e n-eus zouchet _ en n-eus kemeret an alc'hwez fall.
Amelia Fin 3sg-aux think.ptcp C Fin.3sg 3sg-aux take.ptcp the key wrong
‘Amelia thought she had taken the wrong key.’

b. Amelia e n-eus zouchet _ kemeret en n-eus ____ an alc'hwez fall.
Amelia Fin 3sg-aux think.ptcp C take.ptcp Fin.3sg 3sg-aux take.ptcp the key wrong
‘Amelia imagined/thought she had taken the wrong key.’

(21)a. Ar brud vat e-n d-oa _ ( bed ) e houie dresañ pep tra.
the reputation good Fin-3sg 3-aux.past C expletive Fin know.past.3sg fix.inf every thing
‘He had a good reputation for knowing how to fix anything.’

b. Ar brud vat e-n d-oa _ *gouzout a r-ae* dresañ pep tra .
the reputation good Fin-3sg 3-aux.past C know.inf Fin do-past.3sg fix.inf every thing
‘He had a good reputation for knowing how to fix anything.’

(22) Simone a jouch _ *gouzout a r-aio* ar sodenn-se troc'hañ uheloc'h ar harzenn.
Simone Fin think C know.inf Fin do-fut.3sg the idiot-here cut.inf higher the hedge
‘Simone thinks that this idiot will know to cut the hedge higher.’

Leon (Plougerne), M-L. B. (05/2018)
The other Leon speaker AM also permits the optional inclusion of embedded stylistic fronting, as demonstrated in example (23). This is illustrated with a past participle in (23b). Linear inversion can target any element immediately following the tensed element, as shown with an extra aspectual marker in (23c).

(23a. *Mimi a joñch* __e__ *trouc'ho* ar sodenn-se
Mimi Fin think pres sg C Fin cut fut 3sg the idiot-here
uheloc'h ar harzenn e-giz ar bloavezh paseet.
higher the hedge like the year pass ptcp
'Mimi thinks that this idiot will cut the hedge higher than last year.'

b. *Mimi a joñch* __troc'het__ **n-eus** __ar sodenn-se
Mimi Fin think pres.sg C cut.ptcp 3sg-aux cut the idiot-here
*uheloc'h ar harzenn e-giz ar bloavezh paseet.*
higher the hedge like the year pass.ptcp
‘Mimi thinks that this idiot has cut the hedge higher than last year.’

c. *Mimi a joñch* __bet__ **n-eus** __troc'het ar sodenn-se
Mimi Fin think pres.sg C be.ptcp 3sg-aux be.ptcp cut.ptcp the idiot-here
*uheloc'h ar harzenn e-giz ar bloavezh paseet.*
higher the hedge like the year pass.ptcp
‘Mimi thinks that this idiot has cut the hedge higher than last year.’

Leon (Lesneven/Kerlouan), A. M. (05/2016)

This study is not the first to report stylistic fronting as permissible within embedded domains in Breton. Rivero (1999) had presented a critical minimal pair in (24), based on the grammatical judgment of Janig Stephens, a native speaker of the Treger dialect. The -eñ morpheme is homophone with the third-person singular masculine independent pronoun and forms a unique compound *hag-eñ*, which is exclusive to the Treger dialect. It occurs solely within embedded domains. A prevailing hypothesis, put forth in Lambert (1998:318) and Rivero (1999:81-82), posits that the element -eñ in example (24a.) functions as an expletive. Notably, the embedded expletive -eñ and the stylistic fronting operation illustrated in example (24b.) are observed to be in complementary distribution

(24)a. N' țuz-on ket hag-ēn e-n d-eus lennet al levr.
neg know pres-1sg neg if expl Fin-3sg 3-aux pres read.ptcp the book
'I don't know if he has read the book.'

b. N' țuz-on ket ha lennet e-n d-eus __al levr.
neg know pres-1sg neg if read.ptcp Fin-3sg 3-aux pres read.ptcp the book
'I don't know if he has read the book.'

Treger, Rivero (1999:81-82)

These examples are captured by the empirical generalization that in the northern dialects of Leon and Treger, the initial presence of a C head in embedded domains does not ban post-syntactic word order re-arrangements. Operations that we know to be last-resort for T2 in matrix sentences here seem optional. Before turning to the analysis of these facts, we will see their empirical limitation.

**Ill.2. Limits to embedded last-resort T2**

There are heavy limitations to the embedded T2 previously discussed. First, and this is empirically very important, they are absent from corpora<fnref n="7" />. Following the descriptive literature so far,

<footnote n="7">⁷ Breton corpora has reasonable size and quality, but the lack of richly annotated corpus and parser impacts its searchability. The wikigrammar ARBRES (Jouitteau 2009-2024) describes Breton syntactic variation with hand -picked examples coming from about 500 published references. No embedded verb-second has been reported in syntactic</footnote>
they do not exist. Prescriptive or pedagogical texts in standard Breton would unambiguously mark them as ungrammatical. Embedded last-resort T2 orders are obtained only in elicitation context. Within which these important limitations, their grammaticality status among the speakers studied is however strong. Prior to participating in the protocol, these individuals underwent testing to ascertain their ability to evaluate grammatical structures accurately. It has been verified that their judgments remain consistent over time. When queried about the potential distinction between the two options, the speakers reported no perceivable difference. Nevertheless, when asked to express a preference between the two, there was a clear and consistent inclination towards the regular C-Fin-VSO word orders.

Subtle variations in information structure significantly affect the grammaticality of embedded expletive strategies. Consider example (25), where M-L. B. does not permit the stylistic fronting of the participle (25b). This phenomenon unlikely results from an intervention effect related to inversion, as this speaker typically allows for the positioning of past participles before lexical subjects. In contrast, subject fronting is deemed grammatical in (25c). The analysis in this case must consider the possibility that the speaker is invoking a context that induces a contrastive focus on the entity 'Julie'. Replication of this inquiry necessitates a rigorously controlled protocol attentive to information structure nuances and well-informed about the specific potential prosodies in both matrix and embedded sentences. For the moment, we are here facing a gap in the availability of prosodic models for Breton that would enable reliable predictions.

(25)a. *Me chouj* d'ar poent-se e houie _ e **n-oa** Julie kemeret va oto.

I think pres.1sg at the time-there Fin know.past.3sg C Fin 3-aux.past Julie take.ptcp
my car

b. *Me chouj* d'ar poent-se e houie _ **kemeret** e n-oa Julie _ va oto.

I think pres.1sg at the time-there Fin know.past.3sg C take.ptcp Fin 3-aux.past Julie take.ptcp my car

c. Me chouj d'ar poent-se e houie _ Julie e n-oa _ kemeret va oto.

I think pres.1sg at the time-there Fin know.past.3sg C Julie Fin 3-aux.past Julie take.ptcp
my car

‘I think from that moment he knew that Julie had taken my car.’

Leon (Plougerne), M-L. B. (05/2018)

At this stage, it is important to observe that alterations in prosody directly influence the interpretability of embedded clauses as independent root clauses. The introduction of prosodic breaks results in variations in grammaticality judgments. For instance, the speaker AM in (26a) deemed the embedded stylistic fronting as ungrammatical. However, the inclusion of a prosodic break, as shown in example (26b), rendered it grammatically acceptable. It should be noted, however, that this rectification through prosodic intervention is not universally applicable (see 27). The specific conditions where a prosodic break will make a sentence grammatical or not should be seriously investigated, with an informed modelisation of Breton prosody.

(26) a. * *Me a gred*_ **plantet** ‘**n-eus** Simone patatez er bloavezh-mañ egist he amezog.

I Fin thinks C planted Fin 3.aux.pres Simone potato.pl in the year-here like her
neighbour

‘I think that Simone has planted potatoes like her neighbour this year.’

b. *Me a gred*_ // **plantet** ‘**n-eus** Simone patatez er bloavezh-mañ egist he amezog.

I Fin thinks C planted Fin 3.aux.pres Simone potato.pl in the year-here like her
neighbour

‘I think that Simone has planted potatoes like her neighbour this year.’

<footnote>environment where it is last resort, despite a long-term focus on the matter (Jouitteau 2009-2024: ‘Embedded V2’).</footnote>
(27) * Mimi a joñch_ // gouzout a raio ar sodenn-se troc'hañ
Mimi Fin thinks C̄ to.know Fin do.fut.3sg the idiot-here to-cut
berroc'h ar harz e-giz ar bloavezh paseet.
shorter the hedge like the year passed
'Mimi thinks that this idiot will know to cut the hedge shorter than last year.'

Leon (Lesneven/Kerlouan), A. M. (05/2016)

With this in mind, we will now check that in the gathered evidence for embedded T2 so far, the clauses were fully integrated into the syntactic structure, and not merely pronounced after another root clause. Our conclusion will be that embedded T2 sentences under investigation here are indeed syntactically embedded.

## IV The syntactic integration of embedded T2

Wurmbrand's (2012, 2014) work proposes an interface mechanism that accounts for variations in the integration of embedded T2 sentences. According to her model, if two clauses merge in syntax, they achieve full integration, as exemplified in (28a). Alternatively, they may merge in a module termed 'Transfer' before being processed by Phonological Form (PF) and Logical Form (LF). The level of integration will next depend on Spell-out decisions. When realized as separate Spell-out domains, the two domains maintain complete independence. Conversely, if they are realized within a single Spell-Out domain, their integration is partial. In this case, phenomena such as quantifier binding are observable, yet the two structures retain syntactic independence, as illustrated in (28c).

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>(28)a. at Syntax</figcaption></figure>

Fully integrated clauses

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>b. at Transfer</figcaption></figure>

Partially or non-integrated clauses

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>c. at Spell-Out</figcaption></figure>

Wurmbrand (2014) relies on the root generalization, by which a TP or CP is a root clause if and only if it has interpretable tense on the top projection. This is meant to obtain in German that the clauses that do not instantiate verb-raising will never count as roots: German verb-final sentences will always be fully integrated embedded clauses. A stipulation bans Tense marked clauses to Merge with a higher verb in syntax, and this leads to Merge outside of syntax, at *Transfer* before spell-out.

It remains unclear in this scenario why syntactically root clauses would so persistently start with a complementizer. However, the prediction is clear. In clauses that are tense-second on the surface, but are only partially integrated into syntax or not integrated at all, we should document no extraction, no movement, and only root phenomena. I will now show that Breton disproves those predictions, and thus Wurmbrand's (2014) proposal that (28a) is not the structure for embedded T2.

I will propose that, in Breton and in probably all linear T2 languages, the word orders that surface as last-resort T2 clauses are syntactically integrated as in (28a). At the step of the derivation illustrated in (28a), they might still not be T2, and this order will be linearly enforced later in the linearization process.
IV.1 Weak island effect

The control sentence in (29a) shows grammaticality of embedded stylistic fronting. The speaker
showed some hesitation, and finally accepted the sentence. Extraction out of the clausal complements
is grammatical for the adjunct *betek peleah* in (29b). Stylistic fronting is not compatible with this
extraction in (29c).

(29)a. ?Jack e n-eus chouch _ baleet e n-eus gad e jochonoù beteg an daol hep kouezhañ.
Jack Fin 3sg-aux.pres think.ptcp C walk.ptcp Fin 3sg-aux.pres with his slipper.pl to the
table without falling

‘Until where did Jack think he would walk without falling?’

b. **Betek peleah** e n-eus Jack kredet _ [ **e n-eche** baleet hep kouezhañ __] ?
until where Fin 3sg-aux.pres Jack believe.ptcp C Fin 3sg-aux.cond.past walk.ptcp without
falling until where

‘Until where did Jack think he would walk without falling?’

c. * **Betek peleah** e n-eus Jack kredet _ [ baleet e n-eche hep kouezhañ __] ?
until where Fin 3sg-aux.pres Jack believe.ptcp C walk.ptcp Fin 3sg-aux.cond.past
walk.ptcp without falling until where

‘Until where did Jack think he would walk without falling?’

Leon (Plougerne), M-L. B. (05/2018)

Object extraction will not show the same restriction. Extraction out of the clausal complements is grammatical for the object *pese parti* in (30a). Stylistic fronting is compatible with this extraction in (30b). Grammaticality of (30b) shows this embedded T2 domain is syntactically integrated. Under the assumption that T2 was realized here by inversion of a postverbal subject into the pre-Tense position (stylistic fronting), (30b) shows that the embedded domains where we observe last-resort operations for T2 are syntactically integrated. (31) replicates (30b) with a context that lowers the plausibility of the embedded subject being fronted by focus. The contrast between object extraction (30b, 31) and (29c) suggests that embedded T2 structures are weak islands.

(30)a. **Pese parti** ar journal a lavar _ [ **e n-eus** an amezog soutenet ] ?
what party the newspaper Fin say.pres.3sg C Fin 3sg-aux.pres the neighbour support.ptcp
‘What party did the journal say that the neighbour has supported?’

b. **Pese parti** ar journal a lavar _ [ an amezog e n-eus __ soutenet ] ?
what party the newspaper Fin say.pres.3sg C the neighbour Fin 3sg-aux.pres the-
neighbour support.ptcp

‘What party did the journal say that the neighbour has supported?’

(31) **Petra** an archerien e n-eus soñjet _ [ ar seurezed a houie ] ?
what the policeman.pl Fin 3sg-aux.pres think.ptcp C the sister.pl Fin know.past.3sg the
sister.pl

‘What did the policemen think that the sisters knew (all along)?’

Leon (Plougerne), M-L. B. (05/2018)

Similar data is available in Germanic languages, but their analysis is less easy because of
parentheticals. It has been proposed for German that argument extraction from an embedded T2
clause results from the use of a parenthetical in a monoclausal wh-sentence (Reis 1997, 2002, see
Kiziak 2010:chap4 for a summary of this debate for Germanic languages). According to this
perspective, the embedding in the example (32) should be analyzed more accurately as *Welchen film
[hat sie gesagt] haben die Kinder gesehen*.

(32) Welchen film [ hat sie gesagt [___ haben die Kinder ___ gesehen ] ] ?
what film aux.3sg she say.ptcp have the child.pl see.ptcp
This counter-argument does not apply to Breton. Breton lexical subjects in parentheticals are uniformly postverbal, as opposed to the lexical subjects illustrated above in (30b) or (31).

## IV.2 Freezing of clausal complements

Another syntactic piece of evidence comes from movement of clausal complements. In most dialects including Standard, fronting of a clausal complement is banned. This is shown in (33). In (33a), the clausal complement is in-situ, and the initial position of the matrix clause is filled in by a last-resort excorporation of the lexical material of the inflected verb, leaving a semantically empty *do* auxiliary in Tense position. In the attempt of (33b), the clausal complement fills in the initial matrix position, letting the lexical verbal material in the Tense position. The ban illustrated in (33) is consistent across dialects.

(33)a. *Karout a rafen* [ _ e tiskouezfec'h an dra-se dezhañ ].
to like Fin do.cond.pres.1sg C Fin show.cond.pres.2pl the thing-here to.him
'I would like you to show this to him.'

b. * [ _ E tiskouezfec'h an dra-se dezhañ ] a garfen
C Fin show.cond.pres.2pl the thing-here to.him Fin like.cond.pres.1sg
*Standard, Kervella (1947:§772)*

However in (34), MLB in Plougerneau (Leon) does allow for movement of a clausal complement (with an empty C<fnref n="8" />) in (34b). This clausal complement is compatible with stylistic fronting (c), but movement is ungrammatical if the clausal complement is T2. The relevant minimal pair is between (34b) and (34d). Presumably, movement of the clausal complement has to involve the complementizer, which forces it to linearize within the same domain as Fin prior to movement. This forced inclusion of C in turn bans last-resort operations for T2.

(34)a. *Tout an dud o d-eus keuz* [ _ e n-eus lennet Alain an dra-se ].
all the people Fin.3pl 3-aux.pres regret C Fin 3sg-aux.pres read.ptcp Alain the thing-here
‘Everyone regrets that Alain has read this.’

b. [ _ E n-eus lennet Alain an dra-se ], tout an dud n-eus keuz __.
C Fin 3sg-aux.pres read.ptcp Alain the thing-here all the people (Fin) 3sg-aux.pres
regret
‘Everyone regrets that Alain has read this.’

c. *Tout an dud o d-eus keuz* [ _ lennet e n-eus __ Alain an dra-se ].
all the people Fin.3pl 3-aux.pres regret C read.ptcp 3sg-aux.pres read.ptcp Alain the thing-
here
‘Everyone regrets that Alain has read this.’

d. * [ *Lennet* e *n-eus* __ *Alain an dra-se* ], tout an dud o d-eus keuz __ .
read.ptcp Fin 3sg-aux.pres read.ptcp Alain the thing-here all the people Fin.3pl 3-
aux.pres regret C
‘Everyone regrets that Alain has read this.’

Leon (Plougerne), M-L. B. (05/2018)

<footnote n="8">⁸ I leave unexplained why her grammar allows for this movement. Fronting of elements starting with a phonologically empty head is not usual.</footnote>
IV.3 Binding inside a T2 complement clauses

In the example (35), the quantifier ‘nobody’ is licensed by clausal negation. This quantifier binds the
subject of the subordinate clause (35a). It does so equally when the past participle is positioned after
the inflected auxiliary in a C-Fin-VSO structure, or before it, as is the case with stylistic fronting
(35b).

(35)a. **Den** *ne lavar james* [ _ **e n-eus** *laeret* an asiedoù kaer ].
person neg say.pres.3sg never C Fin 3sg-aux.pres steal.ptcp the plate.pl beautiful
‘Nobody ever tells he stole the beautiful plates.’

b. *Den ne lavar james* [ _ *laeret e n-eus* an asiedoù kaer ].
person neg say.pres.3sg never C steal.ptcp Fin 3sg-aux.pres steal.ptcp the plate.pl beautiful
‘Nobody ever tells he stole the beautiful plates.’

Leon (Plougerne), M-L. B. (05/2018)

In example (36), the subject of the upper clause, *Amelia*, c-commands the subject of the lower clause, *ar c’hruadur* ‘the child’. The C-condition prohibits the co-referencing of these two subjects, as evidenced by the impossible interpretation marked with an asterisk. Again, the element that underwent inversion through stylistic fronting is not the participle, but rather the subject. Consequently, the evidence is somewhat less robust, as it is challenging to identify contexts unequivocally precluding any form of focus fronting for this subject. Nevertheless, in each sentence, no explicit focus, such as contrastive focus, was discerned. Additionally, no distinct prosody was observed. For this neutral subject, its canonical position is immediately adjacent to the right of the inflected element, thereby rendering it a likely candidate for inversion.

(36) *Amelia e n-eus rentet kount* [ *ar c’huadur e-n n-eus kemeret an alc’hwezh fall* ].
Amelia Fin 3sg-aux.pres give.ptcp report the child Fin-3sg 3sg-aux.pres take.ptcp the key
wrong
‘Amelia realized that the child had taken the wrong key.’

*‘Amelia (=the child) realized that she had taken the wrong key.’

Leon (Plougerne), M-L. B. (05/2018)

IV.4 non-deictic readings in temporal nominals

The final piece of evidence is drawn from the analysis of temporal nominal phrases. Phrases such as
‘the current president’ are typically constrained to deictic interpretations when used in root clauses.
Consider, for instance, sentence (37a); the only plausible interpretation is that the clause’s subject
expresses dislike towards someone who would subsequently become president, within a timeframe
that encompasses the moment of utterance. Conversely, in clausal complement structures, temporal
nominal phrases are not limited to deictic interpretations. Sentence (37b), a corpus example from
Norland (2020), illustrates this point. Here, the interpretation is that the subject of the embedded
clause has a dislike for the president who was in office at the time of this sentiment.

(37) a. *He didn't like the current president*

b. He wanted to make a revolution for his country because he didn't like the current president nor Marcos, nor did he like communists.

In Breton, the temporal nominal phrase *va gwaz em beche* in sentence (38), which translates to ‘my
future husband’ is not necessarily constrained to future time relative to the moment of utterance. This
exemplifies that the second clause does not function as an independent root clause; instead, it is
genuinely embedded within the syntactical structure, and interpreted as such.
(38) Pa vedoun bihan, me soñje
when aux.past.1sg small I think.past.3sg C
va gwaz e-m b-eche e veche
my husband Fin-1sg 1.aux.cond.pres Fin 3.aux.cond.pres
brasoc'h 'it ma 'z eo.
bigger than that Fin aux pres.3sg
'When I was a child, I thought my future husband would be bigger than he is.'

Leon (Plougerne), M-L. B. (05/2018)

V. linearization of high functional heads

The generalization presented in (39) captures the optional nature of T2 within embedded
domains, and accounts for the observed compatibility of this optionality with last-resort operations.
Optionality is contained within the decisions made during the linearization of an initial functional
head. When this initial head is not included in the linearization domain, a last-resort operation
becomes an obligatory response.

(39) Linearization can include or exclude an initial functional head iff it heads ForceP or a higher
functional projection.

I leave open whether (39) can be derived by language dependent prosodic rules. The dialectal
variation in the sporadic formation T2 last-resort embedded order arises from the dialectal
parameterization of (39). All Breton speakers show a preference for incorporating the
complementizer within the spell-out domain of the embedded clause. In the Leon dialect, speakers
like MLB and AM also accept configurations where this domain does not include the
complementizer, thereby initiating last-resort strategies. Conversely, Huguette Gaudart, representing
the East Kerne dialect, consistently includes the complementizer in her linearization process, which
means that for her C-Fin-VSO orderings have no T2 alternative.

In the remainder of this final section, I check (39) against functional heads other than ForceP.
The sentence in (40) represents a polar question, commencing with an initial Q head that is followed
by a complementizer, morphologically indistinguishable from a coordination marker. This
complementizer may either be included into the linearization domain as in (40a), or omitted during
linearization, a process which precipitates stylistic fronting as observed in (40b).

(40)a. *Daoustë hag *e-n* **n-eus** *diskouezet* *Anna laouen he loa*, *pe inventet e-m eus* ?
Q if Fin-3sgm 3-aux.pres show.ptcp Anna happy her spoon or invent.ptcp
Fin-1sg aux.pres
'Did Anna proudly hold up the spoon or did I make it up?'

b. *Daoustë hag <ins>diskouezet e-n</ins> **n-eus** ______ Anna laouen he loa, pe inventet e-m eus ?
Q if show.ptcp Fin-3sgm 3-aux.pres show.ptcp Anna happy her spoon or
invent.ptcp Fin-1sg aux.pres

'Did Anna proudly hold up the spoon or did I make it up?'

Leon (Lesneven/Kerlouan), A.M. (05/2016)

This effect can also be demonstrated using a bona fide coordination marker. Referring back to the
structure of the left periphery as illustrated in (4), this marker is external to the clause, positioned
above the C line. Demonstrating this effect with a coordination marker in a declarative clause proves
somewhat more challenging. The issue does not lie in identifying the surface alternations
schematized in (41). These alternations are fully productive. The coordination marker *ha*, which is
pronounced *hag* before a vowel, can precede a regular T2 matrix sentence. This leads to &-T2 orders, as depicted in (41a), prior to a last-resort operation for T2. An alternative, &-VSO orders, is also invariably feasible (41b), without triggering any last-resort operation. In these instances, it is the coordination marker that occupies the initial position.

(41) coordination and linearization of root clauses

a. & - T2

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

b.

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

The challenging aspect of our analysis involves demonstrating that no phonologically null element intervenes between the coordination marker and the Fin head in example (41b), and that indeed the initial element saturating the T2 requirement is the coordination marker and not a topic-drop or a null adverb.

Consider the sentence presented in (42). This sentence originates from a corpus, specifically the transcription of an oral interview with a native Leon speaker from Plougerne, conducted in the 1980s. The sentence preceding (42) in the context is unrelated, stating, “That was quite expensive at the time!”. Hence, all information in (42) is contextually novel. The sentence likely exhibits a flat information structure with all-focus. The coordination marker introduces a temporal, consecutive interpretation. This interpretation complicates the task of conclusively ruling out the presence of a phonologically null adverb, such as ‘then’, which may have been omitted due to semantic redundancy with the coordination marker.<fnref n="9" />

(42) *Hag e koumañsemp ar sezon da viz C'hwevrer betek fin miz Gwengolo.*
and Fin started.past.I pl the season at month February until end month September
'And (then?) we used to start the work season in February until the end of September.'

Leon (Plougerne), Elegoet (1982:16)

However, there exist certain instances where the coordination marker predominantly conveys an additive meaning, devoid of any temporal consecutive implications. In the preceding context for (43), the speaker stated “We had a long dock that we constructed ourselves, extending from the sea at its lowest point to the top. Imagine large rocks! Occasionally, they were as sizable as the table here...”.

(43) *Hag e vije m'en dare pet, gant limieri o klask ober ar c'hal.*
and Fin aux.cond.3sg I.it.know.not how.many with lever.pl at search do.inf the dock
'And there was I don't know how many of them, with levers building the dock.'

Leon (Plougerne), Elegoet (1982:39)

<footnote n="9">⁹ See Willis (1997) for the analysis of similar &-Fin-VSO orders in Middle Welsh, at the T2 stage of Welsh diachronic development. He discusses the possibility of an empty operator.</footnote>
I summarize in (44) the linearization patterns we have examined, for both matrix and embedded domains. The lowermost elements on the right side of the structure—focus, topic, or the functional negation head—mandatorily fulfill the T2 requirement, precluding any subsequent operations of a last-resort nature. On the other hand, the uppermost elements on the left side, specifically the coordination marker, the Q head of polar questions and the C head of ForceP, demonstrate variability in their linearization with the verb. They obligatorily linearize with Fin in the Kerne dialect, and they do preferably so in Leon, with some sporadic exceptions that have no impact on semantics, and show non-syntactic reflexes.

(44) &... Q... [ Hanging topic, scene setting Adverbs ] C... focus... topic... neg... Fin-T...

Hanging topics and scene-setting adverbs, which are positioned between these functional high heads in the cartographic representation, never satisfy the T2 requirement. This characteristic correlates with their unique prosodic isolation, further supporting the argument that linearization plays a crucial role in this linguistic phenomenon.

Under the generalization that a coordination marker can be the first element in a T2 matrix sentence, Breton root embedded asymmetries in word order is only statistic. Embedded domains are selected by complementizers, which are normally linearized in the initial position of the domain. Consequently, they are usually C-Fin-VSO. The same word order is observed in matrix sentences preceded by a coordination marker, &-Fin-VSO, adding to the list of matrix linear T2 orders illustrated from (6) to (9).

# VI. Conclusion

Building on previous research, I have proposed that the tense-second requirement in Breton is a post-syntactic effect, a morphological obligatory exponence filtering word order at the scale of the sentence. I have rejected for Breton the hypothesis of Wurmbrand (2012, 2014), and showed that embedded T2 domains are fully integrated into the syntactic structure. The embedded T2 clauses under investigation are not syntactically root clauses. They are fully integrated at the syntactic level (cf. movement, binding), and are calculated as such by semantics (cf. readings of temporal nominal phrases).

The key element is that in the syntax of Breton, these embedded domains are not even T2 yet. Like in any Celtic language, they are VSO. We saw that when an embedded clause is moved in syntax inside the domain of its matrix sentence, it is frozen to C-Fin-VSO order prior to this movement. Only in very special circumstances can the high complementizer be excluded from the linearization domain, calling next for last-resort strategies to ensure morphological exponence at the scale of the clause. The T2 filter is contained in another module operating after syntax, on the output of linearization. This is consistent with the diachronic evidence we have for T2 languages in Europe. The T2 property has a diachronic propensity for contagion by contact. The southern branch of Celtic languages has developed for centuries in contact with Old and Middle French T2. This contagion is efficient because it targets a morphological component (and probably prosody). Syntax is less prone to contact changes. After centuries of heavy Romance influence, Modern Breton for example still has its agreement system untouched, is still *pro-drop* and still has its subjects licensed post-verbally.

Linearization is subject, maybe through prosody, to dialectal parameterization. Breton dialects differ empirically in their tolerance for a left-most functional head to be linearized separately. Only the Leon speakers can allow for it, even though they tend to dislike it. When they do so, they consequently deploy the last-resort strategies available to them for Fin not to be linearized first. The impact of the interplay of linearization and prosody on Breton word order calls for further research. We are in need of a proper modelization of the prosody of the sentence for each type of information structure that we detect in syntax and semantics, and especially the prosody of word orders that we know to be last-resort for T2.
# VI. Appendix: High adjuncts and T2

Across T2 languages, including the Germanic domain, it has been noted that adjuncts vary with respect to the word orders they tolerate. Central adverbial clauses resist to T2, whereas peripheral adverbials don't (Haegeman 2012 and references therein).

## VI.1 Adjunct temporal clauses

In temporal clauses, we observe low adjuncts to be more restricted than high adjuncts. With the Leon speakers, diverse T2 orders are obtained with *pa* ‘when’, as we saw in (18), repeated here as (45) for convenience. Stylistic fronting in (45b) is grammatical inside a temporal clause located in the recursive high left-periphery, at the initial of the matrix clause, inside a prosodically isolated domain. In our analysis, stylistic fronting is a sign that the clause has been generated in this high position, as syntactic clausal movement would have frozen the structure to C-Fin-VSO orders.

(45)a. Pa **m-eus** kleet ar janson-se evit ar wech kentañ, eved-on dougeres.
When 1sg-aux hear.ptcp the song-there for the time first C.aux.past-1sg pregnant
‘When I first heard this song, I was pregnant.’

b. Pa **kleet** **m-eus** ar janson-se evit ar wech kentañ, eved-on dougeres.
when hear.ptcp 1sg-aux hear.ptcp the song-there for the time first C.aux.past-1sg pregnant
‘When I first heard this song, I was pregnant.’

Léonard (Plougerneau), M-L. B. (05/2018)

In (46) and (47), low adverbials starting with the same complementizer *pa* are incompatible with
stylistic fronting.

(46)a. Plijet e-n n-eus din pa **m-eus** klevet va mab e-n d-oa plantet va patatez.

please.ptcp Fin-3sg 3-aux.pres.3sg to.me when 1sg-aux.pres hear.ptcp my son Fin-3sg 3-aux.past plant.ptcp my potatoes
‘I liked when I heard that my son had planted my potatoes.’

b. *Plijet* e-n n-eus din pa **klevet m-eus** ___ va mab e-n d-oa plantet va patatez.

please.ptcp Fin-3sg 3-aux.pres.3sg to.me when hear.ptcp 1sg-aux.pres hear.ptcp my son Fin-3sg 3-aux.past plant.ptcp my potatoes
‘I liked when I heard that my son had planted my potatoes.’

(47)a. Amelia e n-eus c'hoarzet pa **n-eus** komprenet e n-oa en em dromplet.

Alemia Fin 3sg-aux.pres laugh.ptcp when Fin 3sg-aux.pres understand.ptcp Fin 3sg-aux.past reflex mistake.ptcp
‘Amelia laughed when she understood she had been mistaken.’

b.* Amelia e n-eus c'hoarzet pa **komprenet n-eus** e n-oa en em dromplet.
Alemia Fin 3sg-aux.pres laugh.ptcp when understand.ptcp Fin 3sg-aux.pres understand.ptcp Fin 3sg-aux.past reflex mistake.ptcp

‘Amelia laughed when she understood she had been mistaken.’

Léonard (Plougerneau), M-L. B. (05/2018)

## VI.2 Adjunct causal clauses

In causal clauses also, we observe low adjuncts to be more restricted than high adjuncts. The empirical observation is that negation in a matrix clause cannot scope over a T2 cause clause (see De Haan 2001, Heycock 2005, Haegeman 2012 and references therein, Holmberg 2015). This holds true in Breton (48). The given context for (48a) was ‘This was a long trip’ aims at suggesting the
interpretation [¬ *he came*] *because he is lazy*. Structurally, it forces negation to restrain its scope to the matrix domain. When negation does not scope over the causal clause, but C-Fin-VSO orders (48a) and C-T2 are tolerated (48b).

(48)a. *N' eo ket deuet <u>peogwir eo</u> lezireg, ha kavet e-n d-oa hir an*
*hent.*

neg aux.3sg neg come.ptcp because aux.3sg lazy and find.ptcp Fin-3sg 3-aux.past long the road

‘He didn’t come because he is lazy and he found it was too far away.’

b. *N' eo ket deuet peogwir <u>lezireg eo</u>, ha kavet e-n d-oa hir an*
*hent.*

neg aux.3sg neg come.ptcp because lazy aux.3sg and find.ptcp Fin-3sg 3-aux.past long the road

‘He didn’t come because he is lazy and he found it was too far away.’

In (49), the given context is ‘Don’t be nasty! He didn’t come with me only because I have a car and he didn’t want to walk…’. This is meant to force integration of the cause clause inside the scope of negation (¬ [he came *because he is lazy*] ). The embedded central adverbial clause is C-Fin-VSO in (49a), and excludes a T2 alternative (49b).

(49)a. *N' eo ket deuet <u>peogwir eo</u> lezireg, met evit kaozeal samples.*

neg aux.3sg neg come.ptcp because aux.3sg lazy but for discuss.inf together

‘He didn’t come because he is lazy but for us to talk.’

b. *\* N' eo ket deuet peogwir <u>lezireg eo</u>, met evit kaozeal samples.*

neg aux.3sg neg come.ptcp because lazy aux.3sg but for discuss.inf together

‘He didn’t come because he is lazy, but for us to talk’

The Breton facts align with the generalizations developed here for Germanic languages. Peripheral adjuncts are attached high, outside of the scope of the negation in the matrix sentence. The high clause can be T2. Central adverbials however resist T2.

In the view of the proposal put forth in this article, the generalization is that the adjuncts which linearize in prosodically autonomous domains have the freedom to linearize with or without the initial complementizer. For some other reason, central adverbial domains resist this optionality. My proposal provides no new insight concerning this paradigm, but suggests we should enrich the typological debate with prosodic informations.

**Bibliography**

Borsley, Robert and Andreas Kathol, 2000. ‘Breton as a V2 language’, *Linguistics* 38/4:665-710.

Borsley, Robert. D. Maria-Luisa Rivero and Janig Stephens. 1996. ‘Long Head Movement in Breton), *The Syntax of the Celtic Languages: a comparative perspective*, Robert D. Borsley and Ian Roberts (éds.), 53-74, Cambridge University Press.

Elégoët, Fañch. 1982. *Bezhinerien en enezeier*, [The seaweed seekers of the islands], Hor Yezh.

De Haan, Germen. 2001. ‘More is going on upstairs than downstairs: embedded root phenomena in West Frisian’, *The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics* 4:1, 3–38.

Heycock, Caroline. 2005. ‘Embedded root phenomena’, Martin Everaert and Henk Van Riemsdijk (éds.), *The Blackwell Companion to Syntax*, vol. 5. Oxford: Blackwell.

Holmberg, Anders. 2020. ‘On the Bottleneck Hypothesis of Verb-second in Swedish’, Rebecca Woods and Sam Wolfe (eds.), *Rethinking V2*, Oxford University Press: OUP, 40–60.

Holmberg, Anders. 2015. ‘Verb-second’, *Theory and analysis. An international handbook*. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 342-383.

Jouitteau, Mélanie. 2009-2024. ARBRES, site de recherche sur la syntaxe formelle de la microvariation syntaxique de la langue bretonne, http://arbres.iker.cnrs.fr.
Jouitteau, Mélanie. 2020. ‘Verb Second and the Left Edge Filling Trigger’, Rebecca Woods and Sam Wolfe (eds.), *Rethinking V2*, Oxford University Press: OUP, 455-481.

Jouitteau, Mélanie. 2012. ‘Verb doubling in Breton and Gungbe; obligatory exponence at the sentence level’, *The Morphosyntax of Reiteration in Creole and Non-Creole Languages*, Aboh, Enoch O., Norval Smith et Anne Zribi-Hertz (éds.), John Benjamins, 135-174.

Jouitteau, Mélanie. 2011. ‘Post-syntactic Excorporation in Realizational Morphology: Breton Analytic Tenses’, Andrew Carnie (éd.), *Formal Approaches to Celtic Linguistics*, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 115-142.

Jouitteau, Mélanie. 2010. ‘A typology of V2 with regard to V1 and second position phenomena: an introduction to the V1/V2 volume’, *Verb-first, Verb-second, Lingua* 120:2. 197-209.

Jouitteau, Mélanie. 2005/2010. *La syntaxe comparée du Breton*, éditions universitaires européennes.

Kervella, F. 1995 [1947]. *Yezhadur bras ar brezhoneg*, 1947 édition Skridò Breizh, La Baule ; 1995 édition Al Liamm.

Kiziak, Tanja. 2010. ‘A controversial case: Extraction from V2 clause or parenthetical construction?’, chapter 4 of *Extraction Asymmetries: Experimental Evidence from German*. Linguistik Aktuell, 163. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Lambert, Pierre-Yves. 1998. ‘L’actance dans les langues celtiques’, Feuillet, Jack, *Actance et valence dans les langues d’Europe*, 295-346.

Norland, Eric. 2020. *The Wheels of Friend: A Three Year Around the World Bicycle Journey*, iUniverse - travel.

Rezac, M. 2004. ‘The EPP in Breton: An unvalued categorial feature’, *Triggers*, Studies in Generative Grammar, A. Breitbarth & H. v. Riemsdijk, Mouton de Gruyter.

Rivero, María Luisa. 1999. ‘Stylistic verb-movement in yes-no Questions in Bulgarian and Breton’, *Crossing Boundaries, advances in the theory of Central and Eastern European languages*, Kenesei, Istvan (éd.), Amsterdam, John Benjamins, 67-90.

Rivero, María Luisa. 2000. ‘Finiteness and Second Position in Long Verb Movement Languages: Breton and Slavic’, R. Borsley (éd.), *The Nature and Function of Syntactic Categories, Syntax and Semantics* 32, Academic Press, N.Y., 295-323.

Stephens, Janig. 1982. *Word order in Breton*, Ph.D. thesis ms., School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.

Travis, Lisa. 1984. *Parameters and effects of word order variation*, PhD. diss., MIT.

Willis, David. 1997. ‘Clausal coordination and the loss of verb-second in Welsh’, *Oxford Working Papers in Linguistics*, Philology and Phonetics 2, 151–72.

Wurmbrand, Susi. 2014. ‘The Merge Condition, A syntactic approach to selection’, Peter Kosta, Steven L. Franks, Teodora Radeva-Bork & Lilia Schürcks (éds.), *Minimalism and Beyond. Radicalizing the interfaces*, John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Wurmbrand, Susi. 2012. ‘The timing of Merge: Deriving certain clause-linking mismatches’, talk given at the *Workshop on (Mis)matches in clause linkage*, ZAS, Berlin, Germany.
http://wurmbrand.uconn.edu/Resources/Merge.pdf