Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T20:18:02.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Object Shift and remnant VP-topicalisation: Danish and Swedish verb particles and ‘let’-causatives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 September 2013

Eva Engels  and
Sten Vikner
Eva Engels
Affiliation:
English Degree Programme, Department of Aesthetics & Communication, University of Aarhus, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. [email protected]
Sten Vikner
Affiliation:
English Degree Programme, Department of Aesthetics & Communication, University of Aarhus, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

On the basis of an examination of remnant VP-topicalisation constructions, this paper argues for an order preservation analysis of Scandinavian Object Shift. Extending the empirical database, we account for the phenomena in an Optimality Theoretic framework. The paper focusses on two particular constructions in Danish and Swedish, namely particle verb constructions and causative constructions with Danish lade and Swedish låta ‘let’. It is shown how differences in the VP-internal object position give rise to mirror image sequences concerning Object Shift in connection with verb second (V°-to-I°-to-C° movement) and with remnant VP-topicalisation.

Keywords

Danish‘let’-causativesObject Shiftorder preservationOptimality Theoryparticle verbsremnant ScandinavianSwedishVP-topicalisation
Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 36 , Special Issue 2: Object Shift in the Nordic Languages , October 2013 , pp. 219 - 244
Copyright
Copyright © Nordic Association of Linguistics 2013 

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

Aafarli, Tor A. 1984. Norwegian verb particle constructions as causative constructions. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 11, 1–35.Google Scholar
Anderssen, Merete, Bentzen, Kristine & Rodina, Yulia. 2011. Topicality and complexity in the aquisition of Norwegian Object Shift. Language Aquisition 19, 39–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andréasson, Maia. 2008. Not all objects are born alike – accessibility as a key to pronominal Object Shift in Swedish and Danish. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG08 Conference, 26–45. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Andréasson, Maia. 2010. Object Shift or object placement in general? In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG10 Conference, 27–42. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Andréasson, Maia. 2013. Object Shift in Scandinavian languages: The impact of contrasted elements. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 36 (2), 187–217. [This issue]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentzen, Kristine, Anderssen, Merete & Waldmann, Christian. 2013. Object Shift in spoken Mainland Scandinavian: A corpus study of Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 36 (2), 115–151. [This issue]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans. 2008. Derivations and Evaluations: Object Shift in the Germanic Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, Ken Ramshøj. 2005. Interfaces: Negation – Syntax – Brain. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Aarhus. [Available at www.hum.au.dk/engelsk/engkrc/Papers/krc-phd.pdf.]Google Scholar
Déprez, Viviane. 1994. Parameters of object movement. In Corver, Norbert & van Riemsdijk, Henk (eds.), Studies on Scrambling, 101–152. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly & Jelinek, Eloise. 1993. The syntax and semantics of Object Shift. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 51, 1–54.Google Scholar
Engels, Eva. 2011. Microvariation in object positions: Negative Shift in Scandinavian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 34 (2), 133–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engels, Eva. 2012a. Scandinavian negative indefinites and cyclic linearization. Syntax 15 (2), 109–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engels, Eva. 2012b. Optimizing Adverb Positions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engels, Eva & Vikner, Sten. 2006. An Optimality-Theoretic analysis of Scandinavian Object Shift and remnant VP-topicalisation. Linguistics in Potsdam 25, 195–231. [Available at www.hum.au.dk/engelsk/engsv/papers/enge06c.pdf.]Google Scholar
Engels, Eva & Vikner, Sten. 2013a. Derivation of Scandinavian Object Shift and remnant VP-topicalization. In Broekhuis, Hans & Vogel, Ralf (eds.), Linguistic Derivations and Filtering: Minimalism and Optimality Theory (Advances in Optimality Theory), 193–219. Sheffield: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar
Engels, Eva & Vikner, Sten. 2013b. Scandinavian Object Shift and Optimality Theory. Ms., University of Aarhus.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 2001. P-syntactic motivation for movement: Imperfect alignment in object shift. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 68, 49–73.Google Scholar
Fox, Danny & Pesetsky, David. 2005a. Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure. Theoretical Linguistics 31, 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Danny & Pesetsky, David. 2005b. Cyclic linearization and its interaction with other aspects of grammar: A reply. Theoretical Linguistics 31, 235–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garbacz, Piotr. 2010. Word Order in Övdalian: A Study in Variation and Change. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Lund.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1997. Projection, heads and optimality. Linguistic Inquiry 28 (3), 373–422.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane & Guéron, Jaqueline. 1999. English Grammar: A Generative Perspective. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 1986. Word Order and Syntactic Features in the Scandinavian Languages and English. Ph.D., University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 1997. The true nature of Holmberg's generalization. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 27, 203–217.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 1999. Remarks on Holmberg's generalization. Studia Linguistica 53 (1), 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2005. Linearization in two ways. Theoretical Linguistics 31, 147–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulthén, Lage. 1947. Studier i jämförande nunordisk syntax, part II (Göteborg Högskolas Årsskrift 53.4). Gothenburg: Elanders Bogtryckeri.Google Scholar
Koeneman, Olaf. 2006. Shape conservation, Holmberg's generalization and predication. In Hartmann, Jutta & Molnárfi, Laszlo (eds.), Comparative Studies in Germanic Syntax, 51–87. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, Richard. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19 (3), 335–391.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 2001a. Order preservation, parallel movement, and the emergence of the unmarked. In Grimshaw, Jane, Legendre, Géraldine & Vikner, Sten (eds.), Optimality Theoretic Syntax, 279–313. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 2001b. Optionality in Optimality-Theoretic syntax. In Cheng, Lisa & Sybesma, Rint (eds.), The Second Glot International State-of-the-Article Book, 289–321. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Ørsnes, Bjarne. 2013. VP anaphors and Object Shift: What do VP anaphors reveal about the licensing conditions for Object Shift in Danish? Nordic Journal of Linguistics 36 (2), 245–274. [This issue]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sells, Peter. 2001. Structure, Alignment and Optimality in Swedish. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Stepanov, Arthur. 2001. Late adjunction and minimalist phrase structure. Syntax 4 (2), 94–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2003. Limits on P: Filling in holes vs. falling in holes. Nordlyd 31 (2), 431–445.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 2007. The Syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur, Petersen, Hjalmar P., Jacobsen, Jógvan í Lon & Hansen, Zakaris Svabo. 2004. Faroese: An Overview and Reference Grammar. Tórshavn: Føroya Fróðskaparfelag.Google Scholar
Vikner, Sten. 1987. Case assignment differences between Danish and Swedish. In Allan, Robin & Barnes, Michael P. (eds.), The Seventh Biennial Conference of Teachers of Scandinavian Studies in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 262–281. London: University College London. [Available at www.hum.au.dk/engelsk/engsv/ papers/vikn87a.pdf.]Google Scholar
Vikner, Sten. 1989. Object shift and double objects in Danish. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 44, 141–155. [Available at www.hum.au.dk/engelsk/engsv/ papers/vik89a.pdf.]Google Scholar
Vikner, Sten. 1997. V°-to-I° movement and inflection for person in all tenses. In Haegeman, Liliane (ed.), The New Comparative Syntax, 189–213. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Vikner, Sten. 2005. Object Shift. In van Riemsdijk, Henk & Everaert, Martin (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, vol. 3, 392–436. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Vikner, Sten. 2009. SOV/SVO and verb particles. Ms., University of Aarhus & University of Cambridge. [Available at http://www.hum.au.dk/engelsk/engsv/papers/cambridge/vikner-camb2.pdf, accessed 2 July 2013.]Google Scholar
Vogel, Ralf. 2006. Weak function word shift. Linguistics 44, 1059–1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 2003. Representation Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar