Relative der and other C0 elements in Danish

Vikner, Sten

doi:10.1016/0024-3841(91)90067-f

Cited by 35 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In this section I show that in both of these languages, relative complementizers, not declarative complementizers, also appear in clefts and embedded questions, constructions that are typically associated with operator movement to the left-periphery. Following the work of Vikner (1991), Stroh-Wollin (2002) and Franco & Boef (2015) for Scandinavian, and Artiagoitia & Elordieta (2016) for Basque, I assume the generalization that complementizer choice in these languages correlates directly with the presence or absence of an operator in the left-periphery: the relative complementizer shows up when an operator is present and the declarative complementizer appears in the absence of an operator. Given this generalization, the fact that the relative complementizer does not show up in NCCs in these languages casts some doubt on the claim that there is operator movement involved in these constructions.…”

Section: Complementizer Choice and Left-peripheral Operatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Danish, som cannot appear when the relative operator is overt. For details on Danish see Vikner (1991), for details on Icelandic see Thráinsson (2007) and for an overview of the Scandinavian languages see StrohWollin (2002) and Thráinsson (2007). 20 For arguments that clefts are a type of restrictive relative clause, see Reeve (2007: 160-161 More evidence that these clauses do not involve relative operator movement comes from a NCC in Swedish that actually does take som instead of att, namely an interrogative complement of the noun "question".…”

Section: Relative Complementizers and Operator Movement In Swedishmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Noun complement clauses as referential modifiers

Cuba

2017

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A number of recent analyses propose that so-called noun complement clauses should be analyzed as a type of relative clause. In this paper, I present a number of complications for any analysis that equates noun complement clauses to relative clauses, and conclude that this type of analysis is on the wrong track. I present cross-linguistic evidence showing that the syntactic behavior of noun complement clauses does not pattern with relative clauses. Patterns of complementizer choice and complementizer drop as well as patterns involving main clause phenomena and extraction differ in the two constructions, which I argue is unexpected under a relative clause analysis that involves operator movement. Instead I present an alternative analysis in which I propose that the referentiality of a noun complement clause is linked to its syntactic behavior. Following recent work, I claim that referential clauses have a syntactically truncated left-periphery, and this truncation can account for the lack of main clause phenomena in noun complement clauses. I argue that the truncation analysis is also able to accommodate complementizer data patterns more easily than relative clause analyses that appeal to operator movement.

show abstract

Section: Complementizer Choice and Left-peripheral Operatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Relative Complementizers and Operator Movement In Swedishmentioning

confidence: 99%

Noun complement clauses as referential modifiers

Cuba

2017

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Jacobsen and Jensen 1982;Erteschik-Shir 1984;Vikner 1991;Mikkelsen 2002). The following examples demonstrate that der is grammatical in an indirect question where the subject has been extracted, but not permitted in a similar example if the object has been extracted instead.…”

Section: Danish Dermentioning

confidence: 86%

“…The following examples demonstrate that der is grammatical in an indirect question where the subject has been extracted, but not permitted in a similar example if the object has been extracted instead. The literature is divided on whether this element is the subject expletive der 'there' occupying the gap (Erteschik-Shir 1984;Mikkelsen 2002), or a homophonous element in C (Jacobsen and Jensen 1982;Vikner 1991). There are two obvious reasons to position der in the subject gap (Spec,TP).…”

Section: Danish Dermentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Subject Relatives and Expletives in Early New High German

Light¹

2010

BLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt:The status of the subject position in German has been the source of some debate.1 For example, some studies (Biberauer 2004; Richards and Biberauer 2005) have argued that German does not have an EPP requirement in the traditional sense. The absence of an expletive that occurs speciﬁcally in the subject position (as opposed to the topic position in Spec,CP) seems to support the argument that Spec,TP has no special status in German. This paper will argue against such analyses, and show that in historical stages of German, we see evidence of a subject expletive licensed speciﬁcally to ﬁll Spec,TP. This expletive, da in Early New High German (ENHG), is merged speciﬁcally when the logical subject does not move to Spec,TP, leaving the position empty. This supports a traditional analysis of the EPP in German. Furthermore, I will show that the existence of expletive da lends support to the argument that two (non-topic) subject positions are available in the German clause structure (cf. Haeberli 1999, 2000, 2005), which I take to be Spec,TP and Spec,vP (the base position of the subject).

show abstract