Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T21:15:55.339Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Peas and pancakes: On apparent disagreement and (null) light verbs in Swedish

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

Gunlög Josefsson
Gunlög Josefsson*
Affiliation:
Scandinavian Languages, Centre for Languages and Literature, Lund University, Box 201, 221 00 Lund, Sweden. [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Two variants of what looks like disagreement between a subject and a predicative adjective are explored:

  1. (i)

  2. (ii)

Having shown how Construction NOM and Construction PROP differ, I demonstrate that the subject of Construction PROP is clausal. I argue that the topmost XP of the subject phrase of both constructions contains a null neuter element. This accounts for the neuter predicative agreement; hence the idea of default agreement or semantic agreement can be dismissed. I also argue that the subject in (ii) contains a vP, the head of which is a null light verb. Other instances of null light verbs in Swedish are identified too. Finally, I propose an analysis that accounts for the close relation between Construction PROP and the corresponding construction with a med-phrase ‘with-phrase’.

Keywords

agreementÄrter är gott-sentencesdefault genderdisagreementlight verbmed-phraseneuterPannekaker er godt-sentencespassepartoutssemantic agreement
Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , June 2009 , pp. 35 - 72
Copyright
Copyright © Nordic Association of Linguistics 2009

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

Adger, David. 2003. Core Syntax: A Minimalist Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Arad, Maya. 1996. A minimalist view of the syntax–lexical semantics interface. University College of London Working Papers in Linguistics 8, 215–242.Google Scholar
Benveniste, Èmile. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Bowers, John. 2001. Predication. In Baltin, Mark & Collins, Chris (eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, 299–333. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butt, Miriam 1995. The Structure of Complex Predicates in Urdu. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam. 2003. The light verb jungle. Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics 9, 1–49.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam & Lahiri, Aditi 2004. Verbal passepartouts. Ms., Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA & London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1999. Derivation by Phase (MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18). Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville C. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2000. Animacy and the notion of semantic agreement. In Unterbeck, Barbara, Rissanen, Matti, Nevalainen, Terttu & Saari, Mirja (eds.), Gender in Grammar and Cognition II: Manifestations of Gender (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 124), 577–593. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delsing, Lars-Olof. 1993. The Internal Structure of Noun Phrases in the Scandinavian Languages: A Comparative Study. Lund: Institutionen för nordiska språk, Lunds universitet.Google Scholar
Ekberg, Lena. 1993. Verbet ta i metaforisk och grammatikaliserad användning [The verb take in a metaphorical and grammaticalised use]. Språk och stil 3, 105–139.Google Scholar
Enger, Hans-Olav. 2004. Scandinavian pancake sentences as semantic agreement. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 27 (1), 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faarlund, Jan Terje. 1977. Embedded clause reduction and Scandinavian gender agreement. Journal of Linguistics 15, 239–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faarlund, Jan Terje, Lie, Svein & Vannebo, Kjell Ivar. 1997. Norsk Referansegrammatikk [Norwegian reference grammar]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Falk, Cecilia. 1987. Subjectless clauses in Swedish. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 32, 1–26. [Department of Scandinavian Languages, Lund University]Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane & Mester, Armin. 1988. Light verbs and theta-marking. Linguistic Inquiry 19 (2), 205–232.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel Jay (eds.), The View from Building 20, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Heinertz, N. Otto. 1953. ‘Ärter är gott – Karakteristiskt för latinet är rika böjningsmöjligheter’. Om ursprunget till det predikativa adjektivets neutralform i dylika uttryck [Peas is good – characteristic for Latin is rich possibilities for inflection]. Moderna språk, 47, 257–276.Google Scholar
Hellan, Lars. 1986. The headedness of NPs in Norwegian. In van Riemsdijk, Henk & Muysken, Pieter (eds.), Features and Projections, 89–122. Foris: Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1965 [1909–1949]. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, vol. VI: Morphology. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Josefsson, Gunlög, 1991. Pseudocoordination, a VP + VP coordination. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 47, 130–156. [Department of Scandinavian languages, Lund University]Google Scholar
Josefsson, Gunlög. 1998. On the licensing and identification of (optionally) null heads in Swedish. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 61, 101–126. [Department of Scandinavian languages, Lund University]Google Scholar
Josefsson, Gunlög. 1999. On the semantics and syntax of Scandinavian pronouns and object shift. In Riemsdijk, Henk van (ed.), Clitics in the Languages of Europe, 731–757. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Josefsson, Gunlög. 2006. Semantic and grammatical genders in Swedish – independent but interacting dimensions. Lingua 116, 1346–1368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Källström, Roger. 1993. Kongruens i svenskan [Agreement in Swedish]. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgiensis.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1993. Toward a modular theory of auxiliary selection. Studia Linguistica 47, 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1992. Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In Sag, Ivan A. & Szabolcsi, Anna (eds.), Lexical matters, 29–52. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Lødrup, Helge. 2007. Norwegian anaphors without visible binders. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 19, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundin, Katarina. 2002. Small Clauses in Swedish: Towards a Unified Account. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
Malmgren, Sven-Göran. 1990 [1984]. Adjektiviska funktioner i svenskan [Adjectival functions in Swedish] (Nordistica Gothoburgiensia 13). Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgiensis.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2006. Small nominals. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 24 (2), 433–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platzack, Christer. 2004. Agreement and the Person Phrase Hypothesis. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 73, 83–112. [Department of Scandinavian languages, Lund University]Google Scholar
Platzack, Christer. 2008. The Edge Feature on C. Presented at Revisiting Parameters: Holmberg and Platzack (1995) Reloaded; Lund University, 16–17 October 2008.Google Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian & Svenonius, Peter. 2004, Prepositions and external argument demotion. In Solstad, Torgrim, Lyngfelt, Benjamin & Krave, Maria Filiouchkina (eds.), Demoting the Agent: Passive and Other Voice-related Phenomena, 93–99. Oslo: University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth. 1995. On the syntactic category of pronouns and agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 13, 405–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1986. Null objects in Italian and the theory of ‘pro’. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 501–557.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. & Szabolcsi, Anna (eds.). 1992. Lexical Matters. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Teleman, Ulf. 1965. Svenskans genusmorfem [The gender morphemes in Swedish]. Arkiv för nordisk filologi 80, 217–230.Google Scholar
Teleman, Ulf. 1969. On gender in a generative grammar of Swedish. Studia Linguistica 23, 27–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teleman, Ulf. 1987. Hur många genus finns det i svenskan? [How many genders are there in Swedish?] In Teleman, Ulf (ed.), Grammatik på villovägar [Grammar gone astray], 106–114. Solna: Esselte studium.Google Scholar
Teleman, Ulf, Hellberg, Staffan & Andersson, Erik. 1999. Svenska Akademiens grammatik [The Swedish Academy grammar]. Stockholm: Svenska Akademien.Google Scholar
Tenny, Carol. 1992. The Aspectual Interface Hypothesis. In Sag, & Szabolcsi, (eds.), 1–27.Google Scholar
Thurén, Camilla. 2008. The Syntax of the Swedish Present Participle. Ph.D. dissertation, Scandinavian Languages, Centre for Languages and Literature, Lund University.Google Scholar
Trosterud, Trond. 2001. Genustilordning i norsk er regelstyrt [Gender in Norwegian is rule-governed]. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidskrift 19, 29–58.Google Scholar
Wellander, Erik. 1949. Predikatsfyllnadens form i modern svenska. Ett stycke språkutveckling i ultrarapid närbild [The form of the predicative in modern Swedish: A segment of language development in slow motion close-up]. Uppsala: Studier i modern språkvetenskap.Google Scholar
Wellander, Erik. 1985 [1973]. Riktig svenska [Correct Swedish]. Stockholm: Esselte studium.Google Scholar
Widmark, Gun. 1966. Den inkongruenta neutrala predikatsfyllnaden och dess plats i svenskans genussystem [The non-agreing neuter predicative and its position in the gender system of Swedish]. Nysvenska studier 46, 91–135.Google Scholar
Widmark, Gun. 1971. Är färsk sill god eller gott? [Is fresh herring good.common or good.neuter?] In Molde, Bertil (ed.), Studier i dagens svenska [Studies in today's Swedish], 79–87. Stockholm: Esselte studium.Google Scholar
Wiklund, Anna-Lena. 2005. The Syntax of Tenselessness: On Copying Constructions in Swedish (Umeå Studies in Linguistics 2). Umeå: Umeå University.Google Scholar