Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T04:35:46.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 18 - The Unification of Object Shift and Object Scrambling

from Part III - Syntax

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2020

By
Hans Broekhuis
Edited by
Michael T. Putnam  and
B. Richard Page
Michael T. Putnam
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
B. Richard Page
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
Get access

Summary

This chapter reviews a number of issues concerning Scandinavian object shift and object scrambling of the type found in the Germanic OV-languages. It differs from earlier reviews in that it adopts as its null hypothesis that the two phenomena should be given a unified treatment. An important reason for this is that object shift and scrambling are subject to similar effect-on-output conditions. This raises the question why object shift and scrambling behave differently with respect to, e.g., Holmberg’s Generalization. It will be argued that this is due to the fact that object movement is subject to various language-specific, violable constraints.

Keywords

Word orderobject shiftscramblingHolmberg’s Generalizationorder preservationinformation structureA-movementverb movementeffect-on-outputlanguage variation
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics , pp. 413 - 435
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Archangeli, D. and Langendoen, T. 1997. Optimality Theory. An Overview. Malden and Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bayer, J. and Kornfilt, J. 1994. “Against scrambling as an instance of Move-alpha.” In Corver, N. and van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), Studies on Scrambling: Movement and Non-Movement Approaches to Free Word-Order Phenomena. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 17–60.Google Scholar
Bergen, G. van and de Swart, P. 2010. “Scrambling in spoken Dutch: Definiteness versus weight as determinants of word order variation,” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 6: 267–295.Google Scholar
Besten, H. den and Walraven, C. Moed-van 1986. “The syntax of verbs in Yiddish.” In Haider, H. and Prinzhorn, M. (eds.), Verb Second Phenomena in Germanic Languages. Dordrecht: Foris: 111–135.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, H. 1987. “Chain-government,” The Linguistic Review 4: 297–374. Published in 1991.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, H. 2000. “Against feature strength: the case of Scandinavian object shift,” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 18: 673–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broekhuis, H. 2007. “Subject shift and object shift,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 10: 109–141.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, H. 2008. Derivations and Evaluations: Object Shift in the Germanic Languages. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, H. and Cornips, L. 1994. “Undative constructions,” Linguistics 32: 173–190.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, H. and Cornips, L. 2012. “The verb krijgen ‘to get’ as an undative verb,” Linguistics 50: 1205–1249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broekhuis, H. and Corver, N. 2016. Syntax of Dutch: Verbs and Verb Phrases, Vol. 3. Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Chocano, G. 2007. Narrow Syntax and Phonological Form. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2000. “Minimalist inquiries: The framework.” In Martin, R., Michaels, D., and Uriagereka, J. (eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 89–155.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2001. “Derivation by phase.” In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A Lfe in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 1–52.Google Scholar
Christensen, K. R. 2005. Interfaces. Negation – Syntax – Brain. Ph.D. thesis, University of Aarhus.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 1993. “A null theory of phrase and compound stress,” Linguistic Inquiry 24: 239–297.Google Scholar
Corver, N. and van Riemsdijk, H. 1994. Studies on Scrambling: Movement and Non-Movement Approaches to Free Word-Order Phenomena. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diesing, M. 1997. “Yiddish VP order and the typology of object movement in Germanic,” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 17: 369–427.Google Scholar
Engels, E. and Vikner, S. 2013. “Derivation of Scandinavian object shift and remnant VP-topicalization.” In Broekhuis, H. and Vogel, R. (eds.), Linguistic Derivations and Filtering: Minimalism and Optimality Theory. Sheffield, UK, and Bristol, USA: Equinox Publishing: 193–220.Google Scholar
Engels, E. and Vikner, S. 2014. Scandinavian Object Shift and Optimality Theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanselow, G. 2001. “Features, theta-roles, and free constituent order,” Linguistic Inquiry 32: 405–437.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G. 2003. “Free constituent order: A minimalist interface account,” Folia Linguistica 37: 191–231.Google Scholar
Fox, D. and Pesetsky, D. 2005. “Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure,” Theoretical Linguistics 31: 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grewendorf, G. and Sternefeld, W. (eds.) 1990. Scrambling and Barriers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1975. “Logic and conversation.” In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L. (eds.), Speech Acts: Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3. New York: Academic Press: 41–58.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. 1997. “Projection, heads and optimality,” Linguistic Inquiry 28: 373–422.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 1995. The Syntax of Negation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haider, H. 2000. “Scrambling – What’s the state of the art?” In Powers, S. M. and Hamann, C. (eds.), The Acquisition of Scrambling and Cliticization. Springer: Dordrecht: 19–40.Google Scholar
Haider, H. 2006. “Mittelfield phenomena.” In Everaert, M. and van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Vol. III. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Blackwell: 204–274.Google Scholar
Haider, H. and Rosengren, I. 1998. “Scrambling,” Sprache und Pragmatik 49: 1–104.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A. 1986. Word Order and Syntactic Features in the Scandinavian Languages and English. Ph.D. thesis, University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A. 1991. “The distribution of Scandinavian weak pronouns.” In van Riemsdijk, H. and Rizzi, L. (eds.), Clitics and Their Hosts (Eurotyp Working Papers 8). Tilburg University: 155–173.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A. 1999. “Remarks on Holmberg’s generalization,” Studia Linguistica 53: 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoop, H. de and Kosmeijer, W. 1995. “Case and scrambling: D-structure versus S-structure.” In Haider, H., Olsen, S., and Vikner, S. (eds.), Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax. Dordrecht, Boston, and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 139–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jónsson, J. G. 1996. Clausal Architecture and Case in Icelandic. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts: GLSA.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mahajan, A. 1994. “Toward a unified theory of scrambling.” In Corver, N. and van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), Studies on Scrambling. Movement and Non-Movement Approaches to Word-Order Phenomena. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 301–330.Google Scholar
Matthews, K. 2000. The Syntax of Object Shift in Icelandic. Memorial University of Newfoundland.Google Scholar
Molnárfi, L. 2003. “On optional movement and feature checking in West Germanic,” Folia Linguistica 28: 129–162.Google Scholar
Müller, G. 1998. Incomplete Category Fronting. A Derivational Approach to Remnant Movement in German. Dordrecht, Boston, and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Müller, G. 2000. “Shape conservation and remnant movement.” In Hirotani, A., Coetzee, N. Hall, and Kim, J.-Y. (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 30. Amherst, MA: GLSA: 525–539.Google Scholar
Müller, G. 2001. “Order preservation, parallel movement, and the emergence of the unmarked.” In Legendre, G., Grimshaw, J., and Vikner, S. (eds.), Optimality-Theoretic Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 113–142.Google Scholar
Müller, G. 2007. “Towards a relativized concept of cyclic linearization.” In Sauerland, U. and Gärtner, H-M. (eds.), Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 61–114.Google Scholar
Neeleman, A. 1994a. “Scrambling as a D-structure phenomenon.” In Corver, N. and Riemsdijk, van H. (eds.), Studies on Scrambling. Movement and Non-Movement Approaches to Free Word-Order Phenomena. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 387–429.Google Scholar
Neeleman, A. 1994b. Complex Predicates. Ph.D. thesis, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Neeleman, A. and van de Koot, H. 2008. “Dutch scrambling and the nature of discourse templates,” The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 11: 137–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, M. T. 2007. Scrambling and the Survive Principle. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rustick, S. M. 1991. Verb Second and Object Shift in Germanic. University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, J. 2000. The Acquisition of Direct Object Scrambling and Clitic Placement. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sells, P. 2001. Structure Alignment and Optimality in Swedish. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, H. 2001. “Object shift and scrambling.” In Baltin, M. and Collins, C. (eds.), Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Malden: Blackwell: 148–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, A. 1986. Linguistic Theory and the Function of Word Order in Dutch: A Study on Interpretive Aspects of the Order of Adverbials and Noun Phrases. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Vikner, S. 1989. “Object shift and double objects in Danish,” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 44: 141–155.Google Scholar
Vikner, S. 1994. “Scandinavian object shift and West Germanic scrambling.” In Corver, N. and van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), Studies on Scrambling: Movement and Non-Movement Approaches to Free Word-Order Phenomena. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 487–517.Google Scholar
Vikner, S. 2006. “Object shift.” In Everaert, M. and van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Vol. III. Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell: 392–436.Google Scholar
Webelhuth, G. 1992. Principles and Parameters of Syntactic Saturation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, E. 2003. Representation Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zwart, J-W. 1997. Morphosyntax of Verb Movement: A Minimalist Approach to the Syntax of Dutch. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×