Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T04:29:59.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

VP anaphors and Object Shift: What do VP anaphors reveal about the licensing conditions for Object Shift in Danish?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 September 2013

Bjarne Ørsnes
Bjarne Ørsnes*
Affiliation:
Copenhagen Business School, Department of International Business Communication, Dalgas Have 15, DK-2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark. boe.ibc@cbs.dk
Get access

Abstract

The article discusses the placement of the VP anaphor det ‘it’ as a complement of verbs selecting VP complements in Danish. With verbs that only allow a VP complement, the VP anaphor must be in SpecCP regardless of its information structure properties. If SpecCP is occupied by an operator, the anaphor can be in situ, but it cannot shift. With verbs that allow its VP complement to alternate with an NP complement, the VP anaphor can be in SpecCP, shifted or in situ according to the information structural properties of the anaphor. Only if SpecCP is occupied by an operator, must a topical anaphor be in situ. The article argues that a shifted pronominal in Danish must be categorially licensed by the verb and extends this analysis to shifting locatives. An Optimality Theory analysis is proposed that accounts for the observed facts.

Keywords

auxiliariesDanishinformation structureObject Shiftraising and control verbsVP anaphorsVP complements
Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 36 , Special Issue 2: Object Shift in the Nordic Languages , October 2013 , pp. 245 - 274
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

Anderssen, Merete & Bentzen, Kristine. 2012. Norwegian Object Shift as IP-internal topicalization. In Kristine Bentzen & Antonio Fábregas (eds.), The Grammar of Objects, special issue of Nordlyd 39 (1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderssen, Merete, Bentzen, Kristine & Rodina, Yulia. 2011. Topicality and complexity in the acquisition of Norwegian Object Shift. Language Acquisition 19 (1), 39–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andréasson, Maia. 2008. Not all objects are born alike. 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
Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Lexical-Functional Syntax. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Engels, Eva & Vikner, Sten. 2012. Scandinavian Object Shift and Optimality Theory. Ms., University of Århus.Google Scholar
Engels, Eva & Vikner, Sten. 2013. Object shift and remnant VP topicalization: Danish and Swedish verb particles and let-causatives. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 36 (2), 219–244. [This issue]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 2005. Sound patterns of syntax: Object Shift. Theoretical Linguistics 31 (1–2), 47–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Fintel, Kai. 2008. What is Presupposition Accommodation, again? Philosophical Perspectives 22 (1), 137–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Erik. 1977. Dæmonernes port. København: Hans Reitzel.Google Scholar
Hansen, Erik & Heltoft, Lars. 2011. Grammatik over det danske sprog, vol. II. Syddansk universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
Hansen, Erik & Lund, Jørn. 1983. Sæt tryk på – syntaktisk tryk i dansk. København: Danmarks lærerhøjskole.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1992. Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics 9, 183–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinrichs, Erhard W. & Nakazawa, Tsuneko. 1994. Linearizing AUXs in German verbal complexes. In Nerbonne, John, Netter, Klaus & Pollard, Carl (eds.), German in Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 11–38. Stanford CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 1999. Remarks on Holmberg's generalization. Studia Linguistica 53 (1), 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houser, Michael, Mikkelsen, Line & Toosarvandani, Maziar. 2011. A defective auxiliary in Danish. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 23 (3), 245–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Kwang-Sup. 2011. Movement paradoxes are not paradoxes: A raising approach. Lingua 121, 1009–1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David. 1979. Score-keeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8, 339–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lødrup, Helge. 2012. In search of a nominal COMP. In Miriam, Butt & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG12 Conference, 383–403. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
López, Luis & Winkler, Susanne. 2000. Focus and topic in VP-anaphora constructions. Linguistics 38 (4), 623–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikkelsen, Line. 2011. On prosody and Object-shift. Syntax 14 (3), 230–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikkelsen, Line. 2012. Verb-second structures. Ms., University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Miller, Philip & Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2012. Exophoric VP ellipsis. Ms., Université Paris Diderot & University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2009. On predication. In Müller, Stefan (ed.), Proceedings of the HPSG '09 Conference, 213–233. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan & Ørsnes, Bjarne. 2012. Towards an HPSG analysis of Object Shift in Danish. Ms., Freie Universität Berlin & Copenhagen Business School.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørsnes, Bjarne. 2007. Form und Funktion bei der Verwendung des Ersatzinfinitivs im Deutschen. Zum Gebrauch des Ersatzinfinitivs bei Fügungen mit Modalverb und Direktionalergänzung. Acta Linguistica Hafniensis 40, 121–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørsnes, Bjarne. 2011. Nonfinite do-support in Danish. In Bonami, Olivier & Hofherr, Patricia C. (eds.), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 8, 409–434. http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss8/index_en.html.Google Scholar
Pittner, Karin. 1999. Adverbiale im Deutschen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul. 1993. Optimality Theory – Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar (Ru-CCS-TR-2, CU-CS-696–93). ROA Version 8/2002.Google Scholar
Schwenter, Scott & Waltereit, Richard. 2010. Presupposition accommodation and semantic change. In Davidse, Kristin, Cuyckens, Hubert & Vandelanotte, Lieven (eds.), Subjectification, Intersubjectification, and Grammaticalization, 75–102. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sells, Peter. 2001. Structure, Alignment, and Optimality in Swedish. Stanford CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 2002. Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25, 701–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vikner, Sten. 2006. Object Shift. In Everaert, Martin, van Riemsdijk, Henk, Goedemans, Rob & Hollebrandse, Bart (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 392–436. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webelhuth, Gert. 2007. Complex Topic–Comment structures in HPSG. In Müller, Stefan (ed.), Proceedings of the HPSG '07 Conference, 306–322. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Wegener, Heide. 1985. Der Dativ im heutigen Deutsch (Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 28). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar