Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T15:31:57.691Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Defective Auxiliary in Danish

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 August 2011

Michael J. Houser ,
Line Mikkelsen  and
Maziar Toosarvandani
Michael J. Houser*
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Line Mikkelsen*
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Maziar Toosarvandani*
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
*
Department of Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley, 1203 Dwinelle Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA, [[email protected]]
Department of Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley, 1203 Dwinelle Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA, [[email protected]]
Department of Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles, 3125 Campbell Hall, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543, USA, [[email protected]]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In English, auxiliaries form a cohesive category—unlike main verbs, they all raise to T. In Danish, it is not so obvious that auxiliaries form such a unified category. In root clauses, all verbal elements can raise to T (and then to C), while in embedded clauses they always stay in situ. Therefore, determining the position of a verbal element in the extended verbal projection is a challenging task. We examine the Danish verbal element g⊘re ‘do’ that shows up when the verb phrase has been topicalized, elided, or pronominalized. Even though on the surface g⊘re might appear to be of category T or v, we argue that it is located right in the middle. We argue that it is an auxiliary, but, unlike other auxiliaries, g⊘re is defective because it only subcategorizes for vPs that are pronominal.*

Type
ARTICLES
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , 11 August 2011 , pp. 245 - 298
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 2011

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

REFERENCES

Abraham, Werner. 2006. Introduction: Passivization and typology. Passivization and typology, ed. by Abraham, Werner & Leisio, Larisa, 1–27. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adger, David. 2003. Core syntax: A minimalist approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allan, Robin, Holmes, Philip, & Lundskær Nielsen, Tom. 1995. Danish: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Andréasson, Maia. 2008. Not all objects are born alike: Accessibility as a key to pronominal object shift in Swedish and Danish. Proceedings from the 8th Lexical Functional Grammar Conference, ed. by Butt, Miriam & Holloway King, Tracy, 26–45. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Baltin, Mark. 2007. Deletion versus pro-forms: A false dichotomy? Manuscript, New York University. Available at http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/lingu/people/faculty/baltin/papers/baltin-deletion-vs-pro-forms.pdf.Google Scholar
Bjerre, Tavs, & Bjerre, Anne. 2007. Perfect and periphrastic passive constructions in Danish. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 30. 5–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 1995. Morphosyntax: The syntax of verbal inflection. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam. 2003. The light verb jungle. Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics 9. 1–49.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam, & Ramchand, Gillian. 2005. Complex aspectual structure in Hindi/Urdu. The syntax of aspect, ed. by Erteschik-Shir, Nomi & Rapoport, Tova, 117–153. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Martin, Roger, Michaels, David, & Uriagareka, Juan, 89–153. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. by Kenstowicz, Michael, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra, Ladusaw, William A., & McCloskey, James. 1995. Sluicing and logical form. Natural Language Semantics 3. 239–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornips, Leonie. 1998. Habitual doen in Heerlen Dutch. DO in English, Dutch, and German: History and present-day variation, ed. by Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid, van der Wal, Marijke, & van Leuvensteijn, Arjan, 83–101. Amsterdam: Nodus.Google Scholar
Craenenbroeck, Jeroen van. 2004. Ellipsis in Dutch dialects. Leiden: Leiden University dissertation.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter, & Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, Shieber, Stuart M., & Pereira, Fernando C. N.. 1991. Ellipsis and higher-order unification. Linguistics and Philosophy 14. 399–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diderichsen, Paul. 1966. Elementær dansk grammatik. 3rd edn. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1998. Light verbs and the syntax of aspect in Yiddish. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 1. 119–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eide, Kristin Melum. 2005. Norwegian modals. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1973. On the nature of island constraints. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Folli, Raffaella, & Harley, Heidi. 2007. Causation, obligation, and argument structure: On the nature of little v. Linguistic Inquiry 38. 197–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folli, Raffaella, Harley, Heidi, & Karimi, Karimi. 2005. Determinants of event type in Persian complex predicates. Lingua 115. 1365–1401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1997. Projections, heads, and optimality. Linguistic Inquiry 28. 373–422.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth, & Jay Keyser, Samuel (eds.). 1993a. The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth, & Jay Keyser, Samuel. 1993b. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. Hale & Keyser 1993a. 53–109.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. Hale & Keyser 1993a. 111–176.Google Scholar
Hansen, Aage. 1967. Moderne dansk, vol. II. K⊘benhavn: Det Danske Sprog-og Litteraturselskab/Grafisk Forlag.Google Scholar
Hardt, Daniel. 1993. Verb phrase ellipsis: Form, meaning, and processing. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.Google Scholar
Houser, Michael J., Mikkelsen, Line, & Toosarvandani, Toosarvandani. 2008. Verb phrase pronominalization in Danish: Deep or surface anaphora. Proceedings from the 34th Western Conference on Linguistics, ed. by Brainbridge, Erin & Agbayani, Brian, 183–195. Fresno, CA: Department of Linguistics, California State University.Google Scholar
Houser, Michael J., Mikkelsen, Line, Strom-Weber, Ange, & Toosarvandani, Maziar. 2006. G⊘re support in Danish. Paper presented at the 21st Comparative Germanic Syntax Workshop, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine, & Kroch, Anthony. 1992. The licensing of CP-recursion and its relevance to the Germanic verb-second phenomena. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 50. 1–24.Google Scholar
Jäger, Andreas. 2006. Typology of periphrastic “do”-constructions. Bochum: Universitätsverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Jakobsen, Lisbeth Falster. 1996. Sentence intertwining in Danish, seen from a functional grammar perspective. Complex structures: A functionalist perspective, ed. by Devriendt, Betty, Goossens, Louis, & van der Auwera, Johan, 61–92. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1931. A Modern English grammar on historical principles, vol. 4. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1946. A Modern English grammar on historical principles, vol. 5. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Källgren, Gunnel, & Prince, Ellen F.. 1989. Swedish VP-topicalization and Yiddish verb-topicalization. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 12. 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kehler, Andrew, & Ward, Gregory. 1999. On the semantics and pragmatics of identifier “so.” The semantics/pragmatics interface from different points of view, ed. by Turner, Ken P., 233–256. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher. 2002. Deletion and optimality in syntax. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20. 553–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. Phrase structure and the lexicon, ed. by Rooryck, Johan & Zaring, Laurie, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langer, Nils. 2000. Zur Verbreitung der tun-Periphrase in Frühneuhoch-deutschen. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 67. 573–587.Google Scholar
Lobeck, Anne. 1995. Ellipsis: Functional heads, licensing, and identification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
L⊘drup, Helge. 1990. VP-topicalization and the verb gj⊘re in Norwegian. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 45. 3–12.Google Scholar
L⊘drup, Helge. 1994. “Surface proforms” in Norwegian and the definiteness effect. Proceedings from the 24th Meeting of the North East Linguistics Society, ed. by González, Merce, 303–315. Amherst, MA: Graduate Student Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
L⊘drup, Helge. 1996. Properties of Norwegian auxiliaries. Proceedings from the 9th International Conference of Nordic and General Linguistics, ed. by Ottòson, Kjartan G., Fjeld, Ruth Vatvedt, & Torp, Arne, 216–228. Oslo: Novus Press.Google Scholar
López, Luis, & Winkler, Susanne. 2000. Focus and topic in VP-anaphora. Linguistics 38. 623–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Megerdoomian, Karin. 2002. Beyond words and phrases: A unified theory of predicate composition. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California dissertation.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikkelsen, Line. 2009. Constraints on anaphor movement. Poster at Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting, San Francisco, January 9, 2009.Google Scholar
Mohammad, Jan, & Karimi, Simin. 1992. “Light” verbs are taking over: Complex verbs in Persian. Proceedings from the 5th Western Conference on Linguistics, ed. by Ashmore Nevins, Joel & Samiian, Vida, 195–215. Fresno, CA: California State University, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Payne, Thomas E. 1997. Describing morphosyntax: A guide for field linguists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platzack, Christer. To appear. Cross linguistic variation in the realm of support verbs. Advances in comparative Germanic syntax, ed. by Ackerman, Peter & Heycock, Caroline. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 365–424.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1969. Auxiliaries as main verbs. Studies in philosophical linguistics, ed. by Todd, William, 77–102. Evanston, IL: Great Expectations Booksellers and Publishers.Google Scholar
Russ, Charles V. J. (ed.). 1990. The dialects of Modern German. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul. 1985. Part-of-speech systems. Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 1, ed. by Shopen, Timothy, 3–61. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Bonnie D., & Vikner, Sten. 1996. The verb always leaves IP in V2 clauses. Parameters and functional heads, ed. by Belletti, Adriana & Rizzi, Luigi, 11–62. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, Christian. 2004. Die tun-Periphrase im Deutschen. Munich: Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München MA thesis.Google Scholar
Toosarvandani, Maziar. 2009. Ellipsis in Farsi complex predicates. Syntax 12. 60–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Travis, Lisa. 1984. Parameters and effects of word order variation. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Vikner, Sten. 1988. Modals in Danish and event expression. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 39. 1–33.Google Scholar
Vikner, Sten. 1989. Object shift and double objects in Danish. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 44. 141–155.Google Scholar
Vikner, Sten. 1995. Verb movement and expletive subjects in the Germanic languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vikner, Sten. 2001. V0-to-I0movement and do-insertion in optimality theory. Optimality-theoretic syntax, ed. by Legendre, Géraldine, Grimshaw, Jane, & Vikner, Sten, 427–464. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vikner, Sten, & Sprouse, Rex A.. 1988. Have/be-selection as an A-chain membership requirement. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 38. 1–48.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 1979. Anaphora in generative grammar. Ghent: E. Story-Scientia.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter. 1997a. Morphosyntax of verb movement: A minimalist approach to the syntax of Dutch. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter. 1997b. Where is syntax? Syntactic aspects of left dislocaton in Dutch and English. The limits of syntax, ed. by Peter, W. Culicover & McNally, Louise (Syntax and Semantics 29), 353–393. New York: Acadmic Press.Google Scholar
Ørsnes, Bjarne. To appear. Nonfinite do-support in Danish. Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 8, ed. by Bonami, Olivier & Cabredo Hofherr, Patricia. Paris: CNRS.Google Scholar