Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T16:12:08.090Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preposition-Stranding and Passive*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

Joan Maling  and
Annie Zaenen
Joan Maling
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA 02254, USA
Annie Zaenen
Affiliation:
Xerox PARC, 3333 Coyote Hill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA
Get access

Abstract

Various linguists working within the theory of Government and Binding (e.g. Hornstein & Weinberg (1981), Kayne (1981)) have attempted to provide a unified account of preposition-stranding. This article uses evidence from Icelandic to show that preposition-stranding is not a unified phenomenon. Although Icelandic freely allows preposition-stranding in wh-movement constructions, it lacks prepositional passives in which the prepositional object of an active verb corresponds to the grammatical subject of a passive verb. Various syntactic tests which distinguish between grammatical subjects and topicalized NPs are used to demonstrate this. Our conclusion is that while lexical reanalysis is needed to account for prepositional passives, no such reanalysis is warranted for preposition-stranding due to wh-movement; hence, an adequate theory of preposition-stranding must allow for two separate parameters.

Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , December 1985 , pp. 197 - 209
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

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

Andersson, E. 1977. Verbfrasens struktur i svenskan — en studie i aspekt, tempus, tidsadverbial och semantisk räckvidd. Åbo, Publications of the Research Institute of the Åbo Akademi Foundation, Nr. 18.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. 1982. The Passive in Lexical Theory. In Bresnan, (ed.) The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. MIT Press, pp. 3–86.Google Scholar
Ejerhed, E. 1977. The Role of Surface Structure in Semantic Interpretation. In Fretheim, T. and Hellan, L. (eds.) Papers from the Trondheim Syntax Symposium. Department of Linguistics, University of Trondheim, pp. 23–43.Google Scholar
Ejerhed, E. 1979. Verb-partikel-konstructionen i svenska: syntaktiska och semantiska problem. In Josephson, O., Strand, H. and Westman, M. (eds.) Förhandlingar vid sammankomst för att dryfta frågor rörande svenskans beskrivning 11, Stockholm 1978, Institutionen för nordiska språk, Stockholms universitet, pp. 49–64.Google Scholar
Herslund, M. 1984. Particles, Prefixes and Proposition Stranding. In Topics in Danish Syntax, Nydanski Studier & Almenn Kommunikationsteori NyS 14, Akademisk Forlag, pp. 34–71.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. & Weinberg, A., 1981. Case Theory and Preposition Stranding. Linguistic Inquiry 12, 55–91.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. 1981. ECP Extensions. Linguistic Inquiry 12, 93–133.Google Scholar
Körner, R. 1948. Studier över syntaktisk nybildning i svenskan. I. De prepositionella passivbildningarna med hänsyn tagen till motsvarande nybildningar i danskan, norskan och engelskan. Lund: Gleerupska univ. bokhandeln.Google Scholar
Maling, J. 1977. A Typology of Preposition Stranding. Unpublished paper presented at GLOW conference, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Rothstein, S. 1982. On Preposition Stranding. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 4, pp. 245–269.Google Scholar
Zaenen, A. & Maling, J. 1983. Passive and Oblique Case. In Levin, L., Rappaport, M. & Zaenen, A. (eds.) Papers in Lexical Functional Grammar. Indiana University Linguistics Club, pp. 159–191.Google Scholar
Zaenen, A., Maling, J. & Thrainsson, H. 1984. Passive and Oblique Case. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax No. 16, University of Trondheim; revised version, entitled “Case and Grammatical Functions: the Icelandic Passive,” to appear in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3, 441–483.Google Scholar