Scandinavian Negative Indefinites and Cyclic Linearization

Abstract

Abstract. In the Scandinavian languages, a [+negative] phrase must be licensed by Spec‐head agreement in overt syntax, necessitating leftward movement of negative objects, Negative Shift (NegS). Although string‐vacuous NegS is possible in all Scandinavian varieties, there is a considerable amount of crosslinguistic variation as to non‐string‐vacuous NegS. In particular, the varieties differ with regard to which constituents may be crossed by NegS and whether crossing depends on the position of the main verb. Under the cyclic linearization approach (Fox & Pesetsky 2003, 2005a), non‐string‐vacuous movement must proceed via intermediate positions. The variation as to the distribution of negative objects in the Scandinavian languages can thus be accounted for by differences in the availability of these intermediate positions, which is taken here to be determined by a mechanism of feature transmission. The relevance of intermediate positions is corroborated as neither the intervening constituents nor the object’s base position nor its target position (to the left/right of the matrix main verb) can capture the observed variation by themselves.

Preposition stranding versus pied-piping: Negative Shift of prepositional complements in dialects of Faroese

“…In contrast, the other DaL speakers (DaL2) prohibit NegS out of an infinitival clause altogether, whereas the other WJ speakers (WJ1) permit it irrespective of verb position as in (9). See Engels (2009) for more details on the range of variation across the Scandinavian languages as to nonstring-vacuous NegS. There are not only contrasts across varieties, but also contrasts across constructions, as to whether or not NegS depends on the position of the matrix main verb.…”

“…Thus, neither the intervening constituents, nor the object's base or target position, can capture the observed variation as to non-string-vacuous NegS by themselves. In Engels (2009), I put forward an approach to NegS in Scandinavian within Pesetsky's (2003, 2005) cyclic linearization model. Assuming that derivations proceed "bottom-to-top," Pesetsky (2003, 2005), henceforth F&P, suggest that the mapping between syntax and phonology (i.e., Spell-out) takes place at various points in the course of derivation, including at VP and at CP (on multiple Spell-out see also Uriagerika 1999and Chomsky 2000, 2001.…”

“…Thus, cross-linguistic variation as to NegS across a verb in situ may be captured by differences in the availability of the edge of VP as intermediate landing site under the cyclic linearization approach; see Figure 1. More generally, since non-string-vacuous movement needs to proceed through the edge of Spell-out domains, variation as to the distribution of negative objects can be derived by contrasts in the availability of the relevant leftedge positions to NegS; see Engels (2009) for a detailed analysis. 5 In terms of the cyclic linearization approach, these facts indicate that the availability of the edge of VP as intermediate position varies across movement operations.…”

“…(17) NegS stranding a preposition in WJ/DaL/Fa, main verb in situ, Assuming that only the edges of Spell-out domains may serve as intermediate positions (i.e., that only heads of Spell-out domains may receive an edge feature), Engels (2009) considers PP to be a Spell-out domain as well (see Sabbagh 2007). As a consequence, all movement out of PP must proceed through the left edge of PP (see also Baltin 1978 andvan Riemsdijk 1978).…”

“…Thus, movement via the edge of PP need not carry on to the edge of VP as shown in (18) above, permitting NegS just across a preposition. See Engels (2009) for more details on the feature transmission mechanism.…”