This monograph presents a new model of the internal syntax of nominal phrases. The model is mainly based on Scandinavian, since with the wide range of variation that Scandinavian displays in the nominal domain, despite the close genetic relationship between the different varieties, Scandinavian is particularly well-suited for explorations into nominal syntax. Among the topics covered are the basic syntactic structure of nominal phrases, definiteness, adjective phrases, possessors, relative clauses, and nominal predicates. The model is however meant to be a tool for analysing the nominal phrases of any language. While the base-generated structure is taken to be universally uniform, the model allows for variation in the feature makeup of individual elements, in the phonological realisation of the features, and in the movements that may or may not apply. Hence, as shown in the final chapter, patterns found in languages outside of Scandinavian can also be accounted for within the model.

No abstract

This article deals with the distribution of prenominal and suffixed determiners/articles in Scandinavian DPs, and with the overall order of constituents inside the DP. Following Longobardi (2001), I argue that although Scandinavian allows the D projection to be empty under certain conditions, the D projection must be visible at PF when the reference of the DP as a whole depends on D. In such cases, either D itself is spelled out, or else a constituent agreeing with D is moved to Spec DP. The Scandinavian varieties make use of different strategies in this respect, and the result is considerable variation in the shape of the DP. * The research for this article was made possible by the Norwegian Research Council, grant no. 141687/520. I would like to thank Bodil Kappel Schmidt for help with the Danish examples and in particular for the Jutlandic data, o  rbjo È rg Hro  arsdo  ttir and Halldo  r Sigursson for information on Icelandic, Martin Nñs for information on Faroese, Donall O Baoill for information on Irish, Dalina Kallulli for information on Albanian, Vyara Istratkova for information on Bulgarian, Florin Oprina for information on Rumanian, Tarald Taraldsen, Anders Holmberg, Asya Pereltsvaig, and éystein Vangsnes for helpful discussions, and the audiences at SCL 19 in Tromsù and Grammar In Focus in Lund for their feedback. I am also grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their very useful comments on an earlier version.

In the so-called 'double definiteness' varieties of Scandinavian (Norwegian, Swedish, and Faroese), a definite nominal phrase that contains no adjective or numeral has a suffixed article but no prenominal determiner. But if there are adjectives or numerals in a definite nominal phrase, the suffixed article co-occurs with a prenominal determiner. In my analysis, this pattern is related to the requirement that the D-projection must be visible. Because of this requirement, nP, which is the projection of the suffixed definiteness marker, moves to Spec-DP when no prenominal modifiers are present. However, when adjectives or numerals intervene between D and nP, they block nP-raising to Spec-DP. D must then be spelled out, and the result is a preposed determiner.

The main claim of this paper is that embedded V2 clauses in Mainland Scandinavian have the same syntactic structure as main clauses. This means that embedded V2 clauses contain a Force head, and as a consequence, embedded declarative V2 clauses will normally be asserted. Embedded V2 clauses are also similar to main clauses in that they contain linkers which encode the local speaker and addressee. Hence, indexical shift is possible in embedded V2 clauses, but not in non-V2 clauses, which do not contain linkers. In shifted contexts, the assertion that the embedded clause represents will be attributed to the local, implicit speaker, while in other cases, the actual speaker will be responsible for the assertion. The Force head is also the source of the V2 order, since it attracts the finite verb in addition to attracting a phrase from its complement to its Spec. In this way, the connection between V2 order and illocutionary force gets a straightforward explanation.