Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-15T17:04:16.814Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

VP anaphora and verb-second order in Danish1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 May 2015

LINE MIKKELSEN
LINE MIKKELSEN*
Affiliation:
University of California
*
Author’s address: Department of Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley, 1210 Dwinelle Hall, Berkeley, CA 94710-2650, USAmikkelsen@berkeley.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper argues that Danish verb-second clauses have two structural instantiations and that each structure is associated with distinct information-structural properties. Information-structurally undifferentiated V2 clauses are realized as TPs, whereas information-structurally differentiated V2 clauses are CPs. The evidence for this correlation comes from the behavior of the overt VP anaphor det, which exhibits a complex, but principled, positioning pattern in V2 clauses. I develop a feature-driven analysis of V2 clauses that accounts for previously unnoticed restrictions on the initial position in declarative V2 clauses.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , 01 November 2015 , pp. 595 - 643
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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

Aissen, Judith. 1992. Topic and focus in Mayan. Language 68.1, 43–80.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.), LFG08, 26–45. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Andréasson, Maia. 2009. Pronominal object shift – not just a matter of shifting or not. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 84, 1–20.Google Scholar
Asher, Nicholas & Vieu, Laure. 2005. Subordinating and coordinating discourse relations. Lingua 115.4, 591–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, Emond. 1962. The order of elements in a transformational grammar of German. Language 38.3, 263–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, C. L. 1970. Notes on the description of English questions: The role of an abstract questions morpheme. Foundations of Language 6, 197–219.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baltin, Mark R. 1995. Floating quantifiers, PRO, and predication. Linguistic Inquiry 26.2, 199–248.Google Scholar
Bentzen, Kristine, Merchant, Jason & Svenonius, Peter. 2013. Deep properties of surface pronouns: Pronominal predicate anaphors in Norwegian and German. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 16.2, 97–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
den Besten, Hans. 1983. On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules. In Abraham, Werner (ed.), On the formal syntax of the Westgermania, 47–131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birner, Betty. 1994. Information status and word order: An analysis of English inversion. Language 70.2, 233–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birner, Betty. 1996. The discourse function of inversion in English. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Birner, Betty & Ward, Gregory. 1996. A crosslinguistic study of postposing in discourse. Language and Speech 39.2–3, 113–142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Birner, Betty & Ward, Gregory. 1998. Information status and noncanonical word order in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohnacker, Ute & Rosén, Christina. 2008. The clause-initial position in L2 German declaratives. Transfer of information structure. Studies of Second Language Acquisition 30.4, 511–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandner, Ellen. 2004. Head-movement in minimalism, and V/2 as Force-marking. In Lohnstein, Horst & Trissler, Susanne (eds.), Syntax and semantics of the left periphery, 97–138. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branigan, Philip. 1996. Verb-Second and the A-bar syntax of subjects. Studia Linguistica 50.1, 50–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel (eds.), The view from building 20, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Friedin, Robert, Otero, Carlos P. & Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen. 2004. Ellipsis in Dutch dialects. Ph.D. dissertation, Universiteit of Leiden.Google Scholar
van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen & Haegeman, Liliane. 2007. The derivation of subject-initial V2. Linguistic Inquiry 38.1, 167–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewey, Tonya. 2006. The origins and development of Germanic V2: Evidence from alliterative verse. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California.Google Scholar
Diderichsen, Paul. 1966. Logische und topische gliederung des germanischen Satzes. In Diderichsen, Paul (ed.), Helhed og struktur, 364–379. Copenhagen: G.E.C. Gads Forlag. [First published 1953.]Google Scholar
Diderichsen, Paul. 1968. Elementær dansk grammatik, 3rd edn.København: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1990. Verb movement and the subject position in Yiddish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8.1, 41–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1973. On the nature of island constraints. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. [Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1977.]Google Scholar
Eythorsson, Thorhallur. 1995. Verbal syntax in the early Germanic languages. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert & Lenertová, Denisa. 2011. Left peripheral focus: Mismatches between syntax and information structure. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29.1, 169–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga, van Kemenade, Ans, Koopman, Willem & van der Wurff, Wim. 2000. The syntax of early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haeberli, Eric. 1999. On the word order ‘XP-subject’ in the Germanic languages. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 3.1, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haeberli, Eric. 2002. Inflectional morphology and the loss of verb second in English. In Lightfoot, David (ed.), Syntactic effects of morphological change, 88–106. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haider, Hubert & Prinzhorn, Martin (eds.). 1986. Verb second phenomena in Germanic languages. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge & Mikkelsen, Line. 2009. The structure of definite complex nominals (in Danish). Presented at the 83rd Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, San Francisco, 11 January, 2009.Google Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge & Sag, Ivan A.. 1976. Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7.3, 391–428.Google Scholar
Hansen, Erik. 1970. Sætningsskema og verbalskemaer. Nydanske Studier og Almen kommunikationsteori (NyS) 2, 116–137.Google Scholar
Hansen, Erik. 1984. Dæmonernes port, 3rd edn.København: Reitzel.Google Scholar
Heltoft, Lars. 1986. Topologi og syntaks. En revision af Paul Diderichsens sætningsskema. Nydanske Studier og Almen Kommunikationsteori (NyS) 16/17, 105–130.Google Scholar
Heltoft, Lars. 1992a. Typologiens plads i en sprogteori. Sprogvidenskabelige Arbejdspapirer fra Københavns Universitet 2, 67–98.Google Scholar
Heltoft, Lars. 1992b. The typology of verb second and SVO languages: A study in the sign functions of word order. Copenhagen Studies in Language 15, 13–64.Google Scholar
Herold, Jenny Ström. 2009. Proformen und Ellipsen. Zur syntax und diskurspragmatik prädikativer anaphern im Deutschen und im Schwedischen (Lunder germanistische Forschungen 70). Lund: Lunds universitet.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline. 2005. Embedded root phenomena. In Everaert, Martin & van Riemsdijk, Henk (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, vol. II, 174–209. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline, Sorace, Antonella & Hansen, Zakaris Svabo. 2010. V-to-I and V2 in subordinate clauses: An investigation of Faroese in relation to Icelandic and Danish. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 13.1, 61–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 1986. Word order and syntactic features in the Scandinavian languages. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders & Platzack, Christer. 1995. The role of inflection in Scandinavian syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houser, Michael J.2010. The syntax and semantics of do so anaphora. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California.Google Scholar
Houser, Michael J., Mikkelsen, Line & Toosarvandani, Maziar. 2007. Verb phrase pronominalization in Danish: Deep or surface anaphora? In Brainbridge, Erin & Agbayani, Brian (eds.), The Thirty-Fourth Western Conference on Linguistics, 183–195.Google Scholar
Houser, Michael J., Mikkelsen, Line & Toosarvandani, Maziar. 2011. A defective auxiliary in Danish. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 23.3, 245–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, Yan. 2000. Anaphora: A cross-linguistics study (Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobsen, Lisbeth Falster. 1996. Sentence intertwining in Danish, seen from a Functional Grammar perspective. In Devriendt, Betty, Goossens, Louis & van der Auwera, Johan (eds.), Complex structures: A functionalist perspective, 61–92. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobsen, Lisbeth Falster. 1998. Funktionel forståelse af fundamentfeltet. Selskab for nordisk filologi, årsberetning 96–97, 45–56. Copenhagen: Selskab for Nordisk Filologi.Google Scholar
Jensen, Britta. 2007. In favour of a truncated imperative clause structure: Evidence from adverbs. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 80, 163–185.Google Scholar
Jørgensen, Henrik. 2000a. Indføring i dansk syntaks. Kompendium, Århus Universitet.Google Scholar
Jørgensen, Henrik. 2000b. Placement and scope of Mainland Scandinavian modal adverbs. In Lindberg, Carl-Erik & Lund, Steffen Nordahl (eds.), 17th Scandinavian Congress of Linguistics, vol. 1 (Odense Working Papers in Language and Communication 19), 203–221.Google Scholar
Jouitteau, Mélanie. 2008. The Brythonic reconciliation. In van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen (ed.), Linguistic variation yearbook 2007, 163–200. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kaiser, Elsi. 2000. The discourse functions and syntax of OSV word order in Finnish. In Okrent, Arika & Boyle, John (eds.), CLS 36, 179–194. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Kaiser, Elsi. 2002. The syntax-pragmatics interface and Finnish ditransitive verbs. In van Koppen, Marjo, Thrift, Erica, van der Torre, Erik Jan & Zimmermann, Malte (eds.), ConSOLE IX. Leiden, Holland: Leiden University.Google Scholar
Källgren, Gunnell & Prince, Ellen. 1989. Swedish VP-topicalization and Yiddish verb-topicalization. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 12, 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kehler, Andrew. 2000. Coherence and the resolution of ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 23.6, 533–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kehler, Andrew. 2002. Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kehler, Andrew & Ward, Gregory. 2004. Constraints on ellipsis and event reference. In Horn, Laurence R. & Ward, Gregory (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 383–403. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kiefer, Ferenc. 1980. Yes-no questions as wh-questions. In Searle, John R., Kiefer, Ferenc & Bierwish, Manfred (eds.), Speech act theory and pragmatics, 97–119. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiss, Katalin É. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74.2, 245–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koopman, Hilda. 1984. The syntax of verbs. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Koster, Jan. 1975. Dutch as an SOV language. Linguistic Analysis 1, 111–136.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1966. Stative adjectives and verbs in English (Tech. Rep.). Harvard University. In Mathematical linguistics and automatic translation, a report to the National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
Lødrup, Helge. 1994. ‘Surface proforms’ in Norwegian and the definiteness effect. In Gonzalez, Mcree (ed.), NELS 24, 303–315. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
López, L. 2009. A derivational syntax for information structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
López, Luis & Winkler, Susanne. 2000. Focus and topic in VP-anaphora constructions. Linguistics 38.4, 623–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikkelsen, Kr. 1911. Dansk ordföjningslære. København: Lehmann & Stages Forlag.Google Scholar
Mikkelsen, Line. 2002. Reanalyzing the definiteness effect: Evidence from Danish. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 69, 1–75.Google Scholar
Miller, Philip. 2001. Discourse constraints on (non-)extraposition from subject in English. Linguistics 39.4, 683–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milsark, Gary L. 1979. Existential sentences in english. New York: Garland. [Originally presented as the author’s MIT dissertation 1974.]Google Scholar
Molnár, Valéria. 2003. ‘C’. In Delsing, Lars-Oluf, Falk, Cecilia, Josefsson, Gunlög & Sigurdsson, Halldór Á. (eds.), Grammatik i fokus: Festskrift till Christer Platzack den 18 november 2003, vol. 2, 235–248. Lund: Institutionen för nordiska språk, Lunds universitet.Google Scholar
Molnár, Valéria. 2006. On different kinds of contrast. In Molnár, Valéria & Winkler, Susanne (eds.), The architecture of focus (Studies in Generative Grammar 82), 197–233. Berlin: Mouton de Gryuter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørsnes, Bjarne. 2010. Non-finite do-support in Danish. In Olivier Bonami & Patricia Cabredo Hofherr (eds.), Empirial issues in syntax and semantics 8, 1–25.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platzack, Christer. 1986a. COMP, INLF, and Germanic word order. In Hellan, Lars & Christensen, Kersti Koch (eds.), Topics in Scandinavian syntax, 185–234. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platzack, Christer. 1986b. The position of the finite verb in Swedish. In Haider & Prinzhorn(eds.), 27–47.Google Scholar
Platzack, Christer. 2012. Cross Germanic variation in the realm of support verbs. In Ackema, Peter, Alcorn, Rhona, Heycock, Caroline, Jaspers, Dany, van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen & Wyngaerd, Guido Vanden (eds.), Comparative Germanic syntax: The state of the art (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 191), 279–310. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potsdam, Eric. 2007. Analysing word order in the English imperative. In van der Wurff, Wim (ed.), Imperative clauses in generative grammar, 251–272. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Cole, Peter (ed.), Radical pragmatics, 223–256. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1997. On the functions of left-dislocation in English discourse. In Kamio, Akio (ed.), Directions in functional linguistics, 117–143. Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Ellen F. 1992. The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information-status. In Mann, William C. & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Discourse description: Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Reinholtz, Charlotte. 1989. V-2 in Mainland Scandinavian: Finite verb movement to AGR. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 44, 101–117.Google Scholar
Reinholtz, Charlotte. 1990. Verb-second in Mainland Scandinavian: A reanalysis. In Halpern, Aaron (ed.), WCCFL 9, 459–475. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1994. Early null subjects and root null subjects. In Hoekstra, Teun & Schwartz, Bonnie D. (eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar, 151–177. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, Liliane (ed.), Elements of grammar: Handbook of generative syntax, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rögnvaldsson, Eiríkur & Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1990. On Icelandic word order once more. In Maling, Joan & Zaenen, Annie (eds.), Modern Icelandic syntax, 3–40. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Santelmann, Lynn. 1999. The acquisition of verb movement and spec-head relationships in child Swedish. In Adger, David (ed.), Specifiers: Minimalist perspectives, 271–298. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Bonnie D. & Vikner, Sten. 1989. All verb second clauses are CPs. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 43, 27–49.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Bonnie D. & Vikner, Sten. 1996. The verb always leaves IP in V2 clauses. In Belletti, Adriana & Rizzi, Luigi (eds.), Parameters and functional heads, 11–62. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sells, Peter. 2001. Structure, alignment, and optimality in Swedish. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, Tarald. 1986. On verb second and the functional content of syntactic categories. In Haider & Prinzhorn(eds.), 7–25.Google Scholar
Thomsen, Ole Nedergaard. 1996. Pronouns, word order, and prosody. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 28, 131–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiersch, Craig L.1978. Topics in German Syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Tomaselli, Alessandra. 1990. COMP0as a licensing head: An argument based on clitization. Grammar in progress. GLOW essays for Henk van Riemsdijk, 433–445. Dordercht: Foris.Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa. 1984. Parameters and effects of word order variation. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa. 1991. Parameters of phrase structure and verb second phenomena. In Freidin, Robert (ed.), Principles and parameters in comparative grammar, 339–364. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vikner, Sten. 1988. Modals in Danish and event expressions. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 39, 3–33.Google Scholar
Vikner, Sten. 1991. Relative derand other C0 elements in Danish. Lingua 84, 109–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vikner, Sten. 1995. Verb movement and expletive subjects in the germanic languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vikner, Sten. 2005. Immobile complex verbs in Germanic. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 8.1–2, 83–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, Gregory & Birner, Betty. 1995. Definiteness and the English existential. Language 71.4, 722–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weerman, Fred. 1989. The V2 conspiracy: A synchronic and a diachronic analysis of verbal positions in Germanic languages. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Westergaard, Marit. 2009. Microvariation as diachrony: A view from acquisition. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 12.1, 49–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westergaard, Marit R. & Vangsnes, Øystein A.. 2005. Wh-questions, V2, and the left periphery of three Norwegian dialect types. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 8.1–2, 119–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wexler, Kenneth. 2013. A new theory of null-subjects of finite verbs in young children: Information structure meets phasal computation. In Becker, Misha, Grinstead, John & Rothman, Jason (eds.), Generative linguistics and acquisition. Studies in honor of Nina M. Hyams, 325–356. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1997. Review of Jan-Wouter Zwart (1997), The morphosyntax of verb movement: A minimalist approach to Dutch syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics1.3, 263–272.Google Scholar
Winkler, Susanne. 2005. Ellipsis and focus in generative grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yadugiri, M. A. 1986. Some pragmatic implications of the use of yes and no in response to yes–no questions. Journal of Pragmatics 10, 199–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter. 1997. Morphosyntax of verb movement: A minimalist approach to the syntax of dutch. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 1991. Clitics in Dutch: Evidence for the position of INFL. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 33, 71–92.Google Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 2005. Verb second as a function of Merge. In den Dikken, Marcel & Tortora, Christina (eds.), The function of function words and functional categories, 11–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar