Microvariation in object positions: Negative Shift in Scandinavian

Engels, Eva

doi:10.1017/s033258651100014x

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Note that various instances of A-movement and A-bar-movement operations, such as Scandinavian Negative Shift (see Christensen 2005, Engels 2011, 2012, wh-movement, topicalisation, passivisation, and subject raising do not obey Holmberg's generalisation. ' Fox & Pesetsky (2005a) predict that these movement operations proceed successive cyclically: The moved constituents in (113) must have moved to the edge of VP prior to linearisation of the VP domain to prevent ordering contradictions at the spell out of CP.…”

Section: Holmberg's Generalisation As the Results Of Cyclic Linearisationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Object Shift in Scandinavian

Vikner

2017

The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As set out in section 1, this chapter takes 'object shift' to only refer to the kind of object shift typically found in the Scandinavian languages (following the original use of the term in Holmberg 1986:165), to the exclusion of e.g. scrambling as found in Afrikaans, Dutch, Frisian, German, and Yiddish.Section 2 reviews a number of properties and restrictions that apply to object shift but not to scrambling: E.g. that the verb has to leave the VP, section 2.1.1; that prepositions, particles, and indirect objects block object shift, section 2.1.2; that object shift does not license parasitic gaps, section 2.2; and that only DPs (or almost only DPs) undergo object shift, section 2.3. Finally, the potential landing sites were discussed in section 2.4.The difference between Icelandic object shift, which applies to all DPs, and object shift in the other Scandinavian languages, which only applies to pronouns, is discussed in section 3.4.The bulk of the chapter discusses the various suggestions as to key factors in the analysis of object shift and the restrictions which it underlies: Case in section 3, equidistance in section 4, focus/interpretation in section 5, and prosody in section 6.

show abstract

Section: Holmberg's Generalisation As the Results Of Cyclic Linearisationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Object Shift in Scandinavian

Vikner

2017

The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…So in contrast to Kaiser's account, the complement of Pol 0 is not a TopP. Instead, I assume that the Pol 0 selects a CP/IP as its complement and I follow Rizzi (1997, p. 287) and Engels (2011) in assuming that the negation is in the Specifier of the projection. The structure licensing preposed negation in Danish is given below: A PolP between the complementizer and the following CP or IP accounts for the fact that the negation precedes the subject.…”

Section: Preposed Negation In a Polarity Phrasementioning

confidence: 97%

Negating the verum

Ørsnes

2012

J Comp German Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Danish the base position of the negation (and negated quantifier phrases) is between the subject and the finite verb in embedded clauses. However, in embedded clauses introduced by a non-veridical complementizer such as hvis 'if' or om 'whether', the negation can also appear between the complementizer and the subject. This little-studied phenomenon is referred to as preposed negation. The article investigates the syntax and semantics of preposed negation from a primarily descriptive point of view. It is argued that preposed negation is associated with negated verum-focus of a clause lacking an (aboutness-)topic. The negation of a verum predicate explains why preposed negation-like other constructions with verum-focus-fails to license strong negative polarity items and fails to rule out positive ones. The lack of a topic explains why preposed negation is preferred with non-referential subjects and with weak readings of indefinite subjects and why preposed negation is incompatible with topic-binding particles. It is further argued that preposed negation is not a lexical head (or part of a compound), but that it projects a phrase with wide scope, which is selected by the complementizer, rather than adjoined to the following clause. Two possible analyses of preposed negation are presented: an account where the preposed negation is in the specifier of a (selected) Polarity Phrase, and one where the preposed negation is selected as an optional complement by the complementizer.

show abstract

“…Thus, even though the negative expression in (8a) (repeated as (16)) follows the verb, it is outside the VP because the verb has moved to second position 5 [Jon [ leser [ ingen romaner [ t leser t ingen-romaner ] ] ] ]‘Jon reads no novels.’Furthermore, there are varieties in which object shift is not dependent on verb movement; that is, we can directly see the raising of negative quantifiers: in varieties of Insular Scandinavian (e.g., Icelandic and Faroese [Engels, 2008; Rögnvaldsson, 1987] (17)), as in more “literary” registers of Norwegian (Christensen, 1986; Engels, 2008; Svenonius, 2000, 2002 (18)), Swedish (Holmes & Hinchliffe, 2003) and Danish (Christensen, 2005), a negative indefinite object can appear between an auxiliary and a participle; however, NPIs cannot occupy this position in these dialects. Ég hef engan séð.…”

Section: Soft Syntax and Cross-linguistic Variationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Icelandic I have nobody seen (Rögnvaldsson, 1987:37)Í dag heveur Petur einki sagt. Faroese Today has Peter nothing said (Engels, 2008:3)Han har ingen penger fått. Formal/Literary Norwegian He has no money received‘He has received no money.’…”

Section: Soft Syntax and Cross-linguistic Variationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Structural explanations in syntactic variation: The evolution of English negative and polarity indefinites

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is well documented that the study of differences in grammaticality contrasts across the world's languages has implications for the synchronic study of preferential/frequency contrasts within a single language. Our paper extends this observation, arguing that the cross-linguistic study of both grammaticality and frequency contrasts can be crucial to the proper characterization of patterns of diachronic change. As an illustration of this proposal, we investigate patterns of synchronic and diachronic variation in the use of postverbal negative quantifiers (e.g., nothing, nobody, no book, etc., as in, I know nothing) versus negative polarity items under negation (e.g., not … anything, not … anybody, not … any book, etc., as in, I don't know anything) in English. We show how a detailed comparison with similar patterns found elsewhere in closely related languages can give us a better understanding of which linguistic factors condition the use of these different kinds of indefinites in Modern Spoken English and a new perspective on a well-studied proposed change in progress in the English quantificational system.

show abstract

Microvariation in object positions: Negative Shift in Scandinavian

Cited by 4 publications

References 14 publications

Object Shift in Scandinavian

Object Shift in Scandinavian

Negating the verum

Structural explanations in syntactic variation: The evolution of English negative and polarity indefinites

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About