Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T21:53:40.533Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Case Theory and Norwegian Impersonal Constructions: Subjects-Object Alternations in Active and Passive Verbs*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

Arild Hestvik
Arild Hestvik
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Linguistics and Cognitive Science Program, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA 02254, USA.
Get access

Abstract

It is proposed that nominative and accusative Case are both assigned by structural positions at surface structure. From this it follows that Case-absorption is not and cannot be part of the definition of passive. It is shown that a definition of passive without Case-absorption captures the data of personal and impersonal passives in Norwegian with minimal machinery. It also accounts for Case-assignment in impersonal constructions with active verbs without any additional statements. The difference between English and Norwegian with respect to the “forced movement” in English passive is accounted for by appealing to a difference between the two languages in their permissibility of expletive subjects.

Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , June 1986 , pp. 181 - 197
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

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

Baker, M. 1985. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Unpublished MIT diss.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 1983. Objects, Themes, and Lexical Rules in Italian. In Levin, et al. (eds), Papers in Lexical Functional Grammar. Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris: Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Christensen, K. 1986. Syntactic Words and “Real” Words: Conditions on Reanalysis and Word Formation, paper presented at the Third Workshop for Comparative Germanic Syntax, Turku, Finland, 06 7–8, 1986.Google Scholar
Burzio, L. 1981. Intransitive Verbs and Italian Auxiliaries. Unpublished MIT diss.Google Scholar
Hellan, L. 1986. On Objects. Unpublished ms., Department of Linguistics, University of Trondheim.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. ' Weinberg, A. 1981. Case Theory and Preposition Stranding. Linquistic Inquiry 12, 55–91.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, J. 1985. Passives, Reanalysis and the Definiteness Effect. Unpublished ms., Syracuse University. Presented at the LSA Winter Meeting 1985.Google Scholar
Maling, J. ' Zaenen, A. 1981. Germanic Word Order and the Format of Surface Filters, in Heny, F. (ed.) Binding and Filtering. Croom-Helm: London.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. 1984. On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Platzack, C. 1983. Existential Sentences in English, German, Icelandic and Swedish, in Karison, F. (ed.) Papers from the Seventh Scandinavian Conference of Linquistics, 80–100, Helsinki.Google Scholar
Safir, K. 1982. Syntactic Chains and the Definiteness Effect. Unpublished MIT diss.Google Scholar
Sobin, N. 1985. Case Assignment in Ukrainian Morphological Passive Constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 16, 649–662.Google Scholar
Yip, M., Maling, I. ' Jackendoff, R. (to appear). Case in Tiers. Language 63.Google Scholar
Zaenen, A., Maling, J. ' Thrainsson, H. 1985. Case and Grammatical Functions: The Icelandic Passive. Natural Language and Linquistic Theory 3, 441–483.Google Scholar