Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T12:23:47.991Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Norwegian (non-V2) declaratives, resumptive elements, and the Wackernagel position

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 September 2011

Kristin Melum Eide
Kristin Melum Eide*
Affiliation:
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Department of Scandinavian Languages and Comparative Literature, Dragvoll, 7491 Trondheim, Norway. kristin.eide@ntnu.no
Get access

Abstract

Most Norwegian declaratives are subject-initial verb second (V2) clauses. This paper discusses declaratives that can be construed as non-V2, two constructions that have traditionally been analyzed as left dislocation phenomena: the (adjunctive) så-construction and the Copy Left Dislocation (CLD) construction, where the ‘copy’ is a weak pronoun. Both constructions share an affinity to root clauses, have particular scope effects, and employ a prosodically light particle between the topicalized phrase and the finite verb in V2 (så and a weak pronoun, respectively). The paper attributes these properties to the fact that the relevant particles are topic markers of a particular kind; they mark A-topics. A-Topics signal a topic-shift in the conversation and are confined to clauses with illocutionary force (Bianchi & Frascarelli 2010). The aforementioned particles are much more frequent in spoken contexts than in written prose, and I propose that this is because they depend on prosody. They are obligatorily light, and they occur in the part of the clause that has traditionally been described as ‘the Wackernagel position’. Wackernagel (1892) proposed that certain prosodically light elements (clitics in particular) tend to occur in the second position in Indo-European languages. Although the resumptive elements of the så-construction and especially of CLDs may not be fully-fledged clitics, like clitics, they appear in the second position of declaratives.

Keywords

adjunctive sådeclarativesleft dislocationNorwegiansyntaxverb secondWackernagelweak pronouns
Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 34 , Special Issue 2: The Nordic Languages and Typology , October 2011 , pp. 179 - 213
Copyright
Copyright © Nordic Association of Linguistics 2011

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

Agbayani, Brian & Golston, Chris. 2010. Second position is first position: Wackernagel's Law and the role of clausal conjunction. Indogermanishche Forschungen 115, 1–21Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Åkermalm, Åke. 1972. Modern svenska (Modersmålslärarnas förening 103), 2nd edn. Lund: Gleerups.Google Scholar
Altmann, Hans. 1981. Formen der “Herausstellung” im Deutschen: Rechtsversetzung, Linksversetzung, Freies Thema und verwandte Konstruktionen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen. 1993. Wackernagel's Revenge: Clitics, morphology, and the syntax of second position. Language 69 (1), 68–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersson, Lars-Gunnar. 1974. Topicalization and Relative Clause Formation (Gothenburg Papers in Theoretical Linguistics 25). Gothenburg: Department of Linguistics, University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
Andersson, Lars-Gunnar. 1982. What is Swedish an exception to? Extractions and island constraints. In Engdahl, Elisabet & Ejerhed, Eva (eds.), Readings on Unbounded Dependencies in Scandinavian Languages, 33–45. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell Inernational.Google Scholar
Benincà, Paola & Poletto, Cecilia. 2004. Topic, focus, and V2. In Rizzi, Luigi (ed.), The Structure of CP and IP (Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax), 52–75. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina & Frascarelli, Mara. 2010. Is topic a root phenomenon? Iberia 2 (1), 43–88.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric & Grohmann, Kleanthes C.. 2005. Left dislocation in Germanic. In Abraham, Werner (ed.), Focus on Germanic Typology, 131–144. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google 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
Branigan, Philip. 1996. Verb-second and the A-bar syntax of subjects. Studia Linguistica 50 (1), 50–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna & Starke, Michal. 1996. Deficient pronouns: A view from Germanic. In Thrainsson, Höskuldur, Epstein, Samuel David & Peter, Steven (eds.), Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax II, 21–65. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna & Starke, Michal. 1999. The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns. In Riemsdijk, van (ed.), 145–233.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. Bare phrase structure. In Webelhuth, Gert (ed.), Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program, 383–439. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Delbrück, Berthold. 1878. Syntaktische Forschungen, vol. III. Halle: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Dimitrova-Vulchanova, Mila & Hellan, Lars. 1999. Clitics and Bulgarian clause structure. In Riemsdijk, van (ed.), 469–513.Google Scholar
Eide, Kristin Melum & Sollid, Hilde. 2010. Norwegian is a V3 language. Presented at 32. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft (DGfS), Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 23–26 February.Google Scholar
Eide, Kristin Melum & Sollid, Hilde. 2011. Norwegian main clause declaratives: Variation within and across grammars. In Siemund, Peter (ed.), Linguistic Universals and Language Variation, 317–350. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ekerot, Lars-Johan. 1988. Så-konstruktionen i svenskan (Lundastudier i nordisk språkvetenskap). Lund: University of Lund.Google Scholar
Elmquist, Axel Louis. 1945. The resumptive use of så in Swedish. Scandinavian Studies 18, 209–232.Google Scholar
Faarlund, Jan Terje. 1980. Norsk syntaks i funksjonelt perspektiv. Ny revidert utgåve. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Faarlund, Jan Terje, Lie, Svein & Vannebo, Kjell Ivar. 1997. Norsk Referansegrammatikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Ferraresi, Gisella. 2005. Word Order and Phrase Structure in Gothic. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara & Hinterhölzl, Roland. 2007. Types of topics in German and Italian. In Winkler, Susanne & Schwabe, Kerstin (eds.), On Information Structure, Meaning and Form, 87–116. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grohmann, Kleanthes K. 2000. Copy left dislocation. WCCFL 19, 139–152.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2010. The internal syntax of adverbial clauses. Lingua 120, 628–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellan, Lars & Platzack, Christer. 1999. Pronouns in Scandinavian languages: An overview. In Riemsdijk, van (ed.), 123–142.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 1986. Word Order and Syntactic Features in the Scandinavian Languages and English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
Hyltenstam, Kenneth & Larson, Eva. 1974. Dubbel satsdel efter fundament. Ms., Lund University. [Handout]Google Scholar
Jörgensen, Nils. 1976. Meningsbygnaden i talad svenska (Lundastudier i nordisk språkvetenskap). Lund: University of Lund.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2001. Quantifying into question acts. Natural Language Semantics 9, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, James, Shi, Rushen & Allopenna, James. 1996. Perceptual bases of rudimentary grammatical categories: Towards a broader conceptualization of bootstrapping. In Morgan, James L. & Demuth, Katherine (eds.), Signal to Syntax: Bootstrapping from Speech to Grammar in Early Acquisition, 263–283. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Nordström, Jackie. 2010. The Swedish så-construction, a new point of departure. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 85, 37–63.Google Scholar
Østbø, Christine Bjerkan. 2006. The Norwegian function word så and Norwegian CP syntax. Presented at Workshop on Inversion and verb Movement, University of Tromsø. [Handout at http://uit.no/castl/V2workshop/5 (28 June 2011)]Google Scholar
Ottesjö, Cajsa & Lindström, Jan. 2006. Så som diskursmarkör. Språk & Stil 15, 85–127.Google Scholar
Powers, Susan M. 2001. Children's semi-lexical heads. In Corver, Norbert & Van Riemsdijk, Henk (eds.), Semi-lexical Categories (Studies in Generative Grammar 59), 97–125. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane, Haegeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar, 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 (Syntax and Semantics 24), 3–40. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2011. Conditions on argument drop. Linguistic Inquiry 42 (2), 267–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sollid, Hilde & Eide, Kristin Melum. 2007a. On verb second and the så-construction in two Mainland Scandinavian contact situations. Nordlyd 34 (3), 7–28.Google Scholar
Sollid, Hilde & Eide, Kristin Melum. 2007b. Om verbplassering og så-konstruksjonen i to språkmøter [On verb placement and the så-construction in two language encounters]. Norsk som andrespråk (NOA) 23 (2), 5–32.Google Scholar
Sollid, Hilde & Eide, Kristin Melum. 2010. Syntactic structures as sociolinguistic variables: Norwegian main clause declaratives. Presented at Language Contact and Change: Grammatical Structure Encounters the Fluidity of Language, NTNU Trondheim, 23 September.Google Scholar
Speyer, Augustin. 2007. Die Bedeutung der Centering Theory für Fragen der Vorfeldbesetzung im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 26, 83–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speyer, Augustin. 2008. German Vorfeld-filling as constraint interaction. In Benz, Anton & Kühnlein, Peter (eds.), Constraints in Discourse, 267–290. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speyer, Augustin. 2009. Das Vorfeldranking und das Vorfeld-es. Linguistische Berichte 219, 323–353.Google Scholar
Speyer, Augustin. 2010. Filling the Vorfeld in spoken and written discourse. In Tanskanen, Sanna-Kaisa, Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa, Johansson, Marjut & Raitaniemi, Mia (eds.), Discourses in Interaction, 263–290. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teleman, Ulf. 1974. Manual för grammatisk beskrivning av talad og skriven svenska. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
Thorell, Olof. 1973. Svensk grammatik. Stockholm: Esselte stadium.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1979. On Complementation in Icelandic. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 2007. The Syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Travis, Lisa. 1984. Parameters and effects of word order variation. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk (ed.). 1999. Clitics in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Vangsnes, Øystein Aleksander. 2008. On peripheral doubling in Scandinavian. In Barbiers, Sjef, Lekakou, Marika, van der Ham, Margret & Koeneman, Olaf (eds.), Microvariations in Syntactic Doubling (Syntax & Semantics 36), 419–441. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
Vikner, Sten. 1995. Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wackernagel, Jacob. 1892. Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung. Indogermanische Forschungen 1, 333–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watkins, Calvert. 1964. Preliminaries to the reconstruction of Indo-European sentence structure. In Lunt, Horace G. (ed.), The 9th International Congress of Linguists, 1035–1045. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Weerman, Fred. 1989. The V2 Conspiracy: A Synchronic and Diachronic Analysis of Verbal Positions in Germanic Languages. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Zaenen, Annie. 1980 [1985]. Extraction Rules in Icelandic. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 1991. Clitics in Dutch: Evidence for the position of INFL. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanischen Linguistik 33, 71–92.Google Scholar