Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T21:56:15.193Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Anti-*that- trace Effects in Norwegian and Optimality Theory1

Review products

KeerE. 1999. Anti-*that- trace Effects in Norwegian and Optimality Theory. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 22, 183–204.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2010

Edward Keer
Get access

Extract

This article argues that the difference between English and Norwegian with respect to the presence of a complementizer in embedded subject questions is attributable to a larger difference between the two languages, namely that Norwegian is a verb second language while English is not. Verb second forces subject wh- phrases to move to the specifier of a higher projection in Norwegian. The movement creates the need for a complementizer. In English, there is no such pressure for subject wh- phrases to move. Therefore there is no need for a complementizer. The so called anti-*that- trace effects in Norwegian and their lack in English supports the use of ranked and violable constraints in an Optimality-Theoretic system.

Type
Review Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , December 1999 , pp. 183 - 203
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1999

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

Bakovic, E. 1997. Complementizers and Optionality. Ms. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University. ROA-212, Rutgers Optimality Archive, http://raccs.ratgers.edu/roa.html.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Deprez, V. 1989. On the Typology of Syntactic Positions and the Nature of Chains. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Deprez, V. 1991. Economy and the That-t Effect. In Proceedings of the Western Conference on Linguistics 4. Fresno: California State University, 74–87.Google Scholar
Deprez, V. 1994. A Minimal Account of the That-t Effect. In Cinque, G., Pollock, J.-Y., Rizzi, L. & Zanuttini, R. (eds), Paths Towards Universal Grammar. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 121–135Google Scholar
Engdahl, E. 1985. Parasitic Gaps, Resumptive Pronouns, and Subject Extractions. Linguistics 23, 3–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, J. 1997. Projection, Heads and Optimality. Linguistic Inquiry 28, 373–422.Google Scholar
ROA-68, Rutgers Optimality Archive, http://raccs.ratgers.edu/roa.html.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. 1998. Constraints on Constraints in OT Syntax. Unpublished manuscript, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar
Keer, E. 1996. Anti *That- trace Effects in Norwegian. Ms. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University. ROA-187, Rutgers Optimality Archive, http://raccs.ratgers.edu/roa.html.Google Scholar
Keer, E., Bakovic, E. 1998. Have Faith in Syntax. In Curtis, E., Lyle, J. & Webster, G. (eds), Proceedings of the Western Conference on Linguistics 13, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, pp. 255–269. ROA-200, Rutgers Optimality Archive, http://raccs.rutgers.edu/roa.html.Google Scholar
Koopman, H. 1984. The Syntax of Verbs. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Legendre, G., Wilson, C, Smolensky, P., Homer, K., Raymond, W. 1995. Optimality and wh- Extraction. In Beckman, J., Walsh Dickey, L. & Urbanczyk, S. (eds), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18: Papers in Optimality Theory. Amherst, Mass.: GLSA, pp. 607–636. ROA-85, Rutgers Optimality Archive, http://raccs.ratgers.edu/roa.html.Google Scholar
Legendre, G., Smolensky, P., Wilson, C. 1996. When is Less More? Faithfulness and Minimal Links in wh- Chains. In Barbosa, P., Fox, D., Hagstrom, P., McGinnis, M. & Pesetsky, D. (eds), Is the Best Book Enough? Optimality and Competition in Syntax. MIT: MIT Press and MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, pp. 249–289. ROA-117, Rutgers Optimality Archive, http://raccs.ratgers.edu/roa.html.Google Scholar
McCloskey, J. 1992. Adjunction, Selection and Embedded Verb Second. Linguistics Research Report LRC-92007. Santa Cruz, CA: University of California at Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Prince, A. 1997. Endogenous Constraints on Optimality Theory. Paper presented at conference entitled Hopkins Optimality Theory - MayFest 97, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
Prince, A., Smolensky, P. 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Ms. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University and Boulder, CO: University of Colorado at Boulder.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L., Roberts, I. 1989. Complex Inversion in French. Probus 1.1, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taraldsen, T. 1986. Som and the Binding Theory. In Hellan, L. & Christensen, K. K. (eds), Topics in Scandinavian Syntax. Dordrecht, Reidel. pp. 149–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vikner, S. 1996. Optimality Theory and V2, V0-to-I0 Movement, and “Do”-Insertion in Danish, Icelandic, French and English. Unpublished ms. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.Google Scholar