Nominal Phrases from a Scandinavian Perspective (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, LA 87)

Nominal Phrases from a Scandinavian Perspective Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics...

34 downloads 736 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Nominal Phrases from a Scandinavian Perspective

Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) provides a platform for original monograph studies into synchronic and diachronic linguistics. Studies in LA confront empirical and theoretical problems as these are currently discussed in syntax, semantics, morphology, phonology, and systematic pragmatics with the aim to establish robust empirical generalizations within a universalistic perspective.

Series Editors Werner Abraham

Elly van Gelderen

University of Vienna

Arizona State University

Advisory Editorial Board Cedric Boeckx

Ian Roberts

Harvard University

Cambridge University

Guglielmo Cinque

Ken Saﬁr

University of Venice

Rutgers University, New Brunswick NJ

Günther Grewendorf

Lisa deMena Travis

J.W. Goethe-University, Frankfurt

McGill University

Liliane Haegeman

Sten Vikner

University of Lille, France

University of Aarhus

Hubert Haider

C. Jan-Wouter Zwart

University of Salzburg

University of Groningen

Christer Platzack University of Lund

Volume 87 Nominal Phrases from a Scandinavian Perspective by Marit Julien

Nominal Phrases from a Scandinavian Perspective

Marit Julien Lund University

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam/Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Marit Julien Nominal Phrases from a Scandinavian Perspective / Marit Julien. p. cm. (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, issn 0166–0829 ; v. 87) Includes bibliographical references and indexes. 1. Scandinavian languages--Nominals. Grammar, Comparative and general--Nominals. PD1623.J85 2005 439/.5--dc22 isbn 90 272 3351 9 (Hb; alk. paper)

2005053170

© 2005 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microﬁlm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

CONTENTS

Preface ix Abbreviations xi Introduction xiii CHAPTER 1 The syntactic structure of the DP 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 The basic syntactic structure of the DP 1 1.2.1 The structure of nP 2 1.2.2 The position of adjectives 6 1.2.3 The higher projections in DP 10 1.3 The identification of D 14 1.4 Indefinite DPs 18 1.5 Summary 24 CHAPTER 2 Definite DPs 26 2.1 Introduction 26 2.2 ‘Double definiteness’ 26 2.2.1 The nature of the noun movement to the DP projection 27 2.2.2 Blocking of nP-movement 29 2.2.3 Definite nominal phrases with an empty DP projection 30 2.2.4 Prenominal determiners 34 2.3 On D and n 35 2.3.1 Definiteness and specificity 35 2.3.2 Definiteness and superlatives 39 2.3.3 Movement to Spec-DP versus spellout of D 44 2.4 Adjectival inflection 44 2.4.1 The realisation of agreement 45 2.4.2 The internal syntax of adjectival phrases 47 2.5 Definite DPs in Icelandic 54 2.6 Definite DPs in Northern Swedish 58 2.6.1 Word order in Northern Swedish DPs 58 2.6.2 ‘Adjective incorporation’ 61 2.7 Danish, including West Jutlandic 65

vi

CONTENTS

2.8 Nouns that resist nominal inflection 69 2.9 Summary 75 CHAPTER 3 Determiners and relative clauses 77 3.1 Introduction 77 3.2 Determiners in relative clause constructions 77 3.2.1 Restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses 77 3.2.2 Relative clause constructions with nonspecific reference 80 3.2.3 Relative clause constructions and proper names 84 3.3 Towards an analysis 86 3.3.1 Relative clauses and preposed determiners 86 3.3.2 Identification of D in relative clause constructions 88 3.3.3 Scope relations in relative clause constructions 89 3.3.4 The proposal: nonrestrictive relative clauses 92 3.3.5 The proposal: restrictive relative clauses 94 3.4 Some consequences 98 3.4.1 The consequences of nonspecificity 98 3.4.2 The correlate and the relative operator 102 3.5 Summary 108 CHAPTER 4 Demonstratives and strong quantifiers 109 4.1 Introduction 109 4.2 Demonstratives 109 4.2.1 The position of demonstratives 109 4.2.2 The features of demonstratives 112 4.2.3 Demonstratives and suffixed articles 112 4.2.4 Morphologically complex demonstratives 116 4.3 Pronouns, demonstratives and determiners 118 4.3.1 Demonstratives and determiners 118 4.3.2 Determiners and personal pronouns 119 4.3.3 Personal pronouns and demonstratives 123 4.4 Strong quantifiers 129 4.5 Summary 137 CHAPTER 5 Postnominal possessors 138 5.1 Introduction 138 5.2 Postnominal possessors in Scandinavian DP 139 5.3 Possessive PPs 143 5.3.1 Possessive PPs and definiteness 143 5.3.2 Licensing of possessive PPs 145

CONTENTS

5.3.3 Possessive PPs and case 148 5.3.4 Possessive PPs in Jutland Danish 149 5.3.5 Binding out of possessive PPs 151 5.4 Postnominal possessors with genitive case 156 5.5 Postnominal pronominal possessors 159 5.5.1 The case of pronominal possessors 159 5.5.2 The licensing of postnominal pronominal possessors 161 5.5.3 Morphologically invariant possessive pronouns 164 5.5.4 A note on Delsing’s analysis 166 5.6 The possessive pronoun and proper name construction 168 5.6.1 The syntax of possessive pronouns with proper names 169 5.6.2 Possessive pronouns and proprial articles 174 5.7 Coordination of postnominal possessors 178 5.7.1 Coordination of postnominal possessors: the facts 178 5.7.2 Coordination of postnominal possessors: the analysis 182 5.8 Inalienable possession 188 5.9 The DP level 193 5.10 Summary 195 CHAPTER 6 Prenominal possessors 197 6.1 Introduction 197 6.2 Prenominal possessors in Scandinavian DPs 197 6.3 Prenominal possessive pronouns 201 6.3.1 The relation to n 201 6.3.2 Focused prenominal possessors 203 6.3.3 The position of prenominal pronominal possessors 206 6.3.4 On spelling out D 211 6.4 The prenominal possessor doubling construction 214 6.4.1 Two different sin elements 214 6.4.2 The syntax of the doubling construction 217 6.4.3 Some notes on variation 220 6.5 The possessive –s 223 6.5.1 The possessive –s and the doubling construction 224 6.5.2 A ‘mixed’ construction 227 6.5.3 A different possessive –s 233 6.6 Pseudopossessors 237 6.6.1 Swearword pseudopossessors 238 6.6.2 Measure pseudopossessors 241 6.6.3 Characterising pseudopossessors 244 6.7 The definiteness of possessed nominal phrases 247 6.8 Summary 249

vii

viii

CONTENTS

CHAPTER 7 Predicates and arguments 251 7.1 Introduction 251 7.2 Bare singular nominals 252 7.2.1 The context dependency of BSN arguments 253 7.2.2 Nominal predicates with and without indefinite determiner 255 7.2.3 On the syntax of bare singular nominals 261 7.2.4 The morphology of indefinite determiners 266 7.3 Tests for predicatehood 268 7.3.1 Embedding under ‘consider’ 269 7.3.2 Topicalisation 271 7.3.3 Pseudoclefting and nonrestrictive relatives 272 7.3.4 Coordination 273 7.3.5 Summing up the tests 277 7.4 The size of predicate nominals 278 7.4.1 Definite nominal phrases 278 7.4.2 Possessed nominal phrases 279 7.4.3 Possessors followed by numerals 286 7.4.4 A note on adjectives 288 7.4.5 Strong quantifiers and demonstratives 289 7.4.6 The Pred head 292 7.5 Summary 295 CHAPTER 8 Some crosslinguistic perspectives 297 8.1 Introduction 297 8.2 Variation in spellout 297 8.2.1 Languages with no visible n 297 8.2.2 Multiple definiteness markers 299 8.3 Variation in movement 304 8.3.1 The base-generated order 304 8.3.2 Fronting of the nominal 306 8.3.3 The inverse order 310 8.4 Variation in possessor licensing 313 8.4.1 Possessors related to the n head 313 8.4.2 Possessors not related to the n head 317 8.5 Concluding remarks 320 References 325 Language index 338 Subject index 341

PREFACE

The seed that would eventually grow to become this book was sown in the spring of 2000, when I was assigned the topic for one of the two lectures that I was to give on the evening before the defence of my doctoral dissertation. (To get a PhD in Norway one has to go through a procedure that lasts more than 30 hours, if the party is included—a procedure that is very exhausting but also very rewarding.) My dissertation dealt with the relation between syntax and morphology in the verbal domain, carefully avoiding any discussion of the nominal domain, which looked so much more complicated to me, especially in the Scandinavian languages. So I was not too happy when I was informed, the prescribed two weeks before the defence, that my doctoral committee wanted me to give a lecture on the syntax of Scandinavian nominal phrases. Nevertheless, while I was busy working out an analysis of said phrases I realised that the topic was actually very interesting. And not only did I manage to give the lecture that the committee asked for, but once I had started it turned out that I could not stop thinking about nominal phrases and their syntactic structure. After a while I began to develop the manuscript for the lecture into a paper, which was published as Julien (2002a). However, there were many aspects of Scandinavian nominal phrases that the paper did not cover. For a while my plan was to write some more papers, but eventually I realised that a monograph would be a more suitable form. And here it is. At this point, I first of all want to thank the members of my doctoral committee—Mark Baker, Anders Holmberg and Gunlög Josefsson—for forcing me to look into Scandinavian nominal phrases in the first place. For information on the data presented in this book, and for helpful discussions, I thank Berit Anne Bals, Donall O Baoill, Ken Ramshøj Christensen, Lars-Olof Delsing, Mila Dimitrova-Vulchanova, Madeleine Halmøy, Zakaris Hansen, Anders Holmberg, Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, Þórbjörg Hróarsdóttir, David Håkansson, Vyara Istratkova, Knut Johansen, Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson, Gunlög Josefsson, Dalina Kallulli, Helge Leirvik, Ove Lorentz, Máire Ní Chiosáin, Øystein Nilsen, Martin Næs, Florin Oprina, Asya Pereltsvaig, Yevgenia Romanova, Henrik Rosenkvist, Bodil Kappel Schmidt, Halldór Sigurðsson, Knut Tarald Taraldsen, Camilla Thurén, Trond Trosterud, Øystein Vangsnes and Sten Vikner. I thank the audiences at SCL 19 in Tromsø, at Grammar in Focus 2002 in Lund, at the CASTL Kick-Off Conference in Tromsø, at the Grammar Seminar in Lund (on several occasions), at MONS 10 at Agder University College, at

x

PREFACE

CGSW 19 at CUNY, at CGSW 20 at Tilburg University, at the workshop Variation in Language, University of Tromsø, and at a couple of Thursday night seminars in Tromsø for their feedback, and I thank an anonymous SCL reviewer and two anonymous Studia Linguistica reviewers for valuable comments to earlier versions of parts of this book. Special thanks to Elly van Gelderen and Halldór Sigurðsson for reading the whole manuscript and offering many well-founded suggestions, and to Kees Vaes for doing a great job at the final stages of manuscript preparation. My warmest thanks go to everybody at the Nordic Languages Department, Lund University, for welcoming me in Lund and providing a home from home for several periods while I was working on the nominal project. I also thank the Norwegian Research Council for supporting my research financially (grant no. 141687/540). And above all, I thank Helge and Pu, my dearest ones, for putting up with me year after year, although neither of them is particularly interested in theoretical linguistics.

Tromsø, July 2005 Marit Julien

ABBREVIATIONS

ABS ACC ADJ

Agr(P) A(P) ATTR AUX

α(P) Card(P) CG CLASS COM

C(P) DAT DEF

Deg(P) Dem(P) D(P) DU ERG ESS F GEN IDF ILL IMP INF

I(P) LOC

absolutive accusative adjective-forming suffix agreement (phrase) adjective (phrase) attributive auxiliary AP-related head (phrase) cardinal (phrase) common gender classifier comitative complementiser (phrase) dative definite degree (phrase) demonstrative (phrase) determiner (phrase) dual ergative essive feminine genitive indefinite illative imperative infinitive inflection (phrase) locative

linking particle masculine MP measure phrase NEG negation N neuter NOM nominative n(P) nominal functional head (phrase) N(P) noun (phrase) Num(P) number (phrase) OBL oblique Op operator PASS passive PERF perfective PL plural POSS possessive Poss(P) possessor-related head (phrase) P(P) preposition (phrase) PRES present PTC participle Q(P) quantifier (phrase) RC relative complementiser REFL reflexive Rel(P) relative (phrase) SG singular SUP superlative W weak inflection WQP weak quantifier phrase LP M

INTRODUCTION

The present monograph aims at giving a comprehensive analysis of the syntax of nominal phrases in Scandinavian, which are renowned for showing a degree of variation that is quite remarkable given the close genetic relations between the linguistic varieties in question. The largest variation is found in definite nominal phrases and in the realisation of possessors. Definite DPs and possessors therefore receive much attention in the work. However, other topics related to nominal phrases, including predicate nominals, are also addressed— hence the general term ‘nominal phrases’ in the title. The analysis that I develop in this work is cast within a general framework that can be referred to as Chomskyan linguistics—a framework that has been known under various names over the years. My model incorporates certain ideas generally associated with the Minimalist Program of Chomsky (1995) and later work, such as the idea that syntactic structures are built from the bottom upwards and the idea that syntactic movement is driven by features. However, since the Minimalist Program as I understand it is what the name says, namely a program, and not a fully developed theory of language, my proposals may well deviate from other specific proposals that have been put forward under the label of ‘minimalism’. The structure of the monograph is as follows. Chapter 1 deals with the basic syntax of Scandinavian DPs. First the projections that are found in a maximally expanded DP are introduced and motivated. Then the concept of D-identification is presented, the essence of which is that whenever the reference of the DP as a whole depends on D, the features of D must be made visible either in Spec-DP or in the D head. This requirement on D will play a central role in the chapters that follow. In chapter 1 I also discuss indefinite nominal phrases in Scandinavian, since the syntactic structure of these phrases deviate little from the basic structure. The topic of chapter 2 is definite DPs, which show considerable syntactic variation internally to Scandinavian, in particular when adjectives or numerals are present. On my analysis, for each variety of Scandinavian the syntax of definite DPs depends on the location of (overt) definiteness markers—they can be inserted in D or in a lower head that I refer to as n—and on the attraction of various constituents to Spec-DP. A separate section is devoted to a discussion of the heads D and n, and I also deal with adjectival inflection, which appears

xiv

INTRODUCTION

to have a very noticeable impact on the overall syntax of definite DPs containing adjectives. In chapter 3, I look at the distribution of definiteness markers in nominal phrases containing relative clauses. As we will see, in nominal phrases with restrictive relative clauses prenominal determiners show up where we would not expect to see them given the model that I outline in chapters 1 and 2. The analysis I present shares with Kayne (1994) the idea that a relative clause is embedded under a DP, but it diverges from Kayne’s proposal in certain other respects. On my view, prenominal determiners in restrictive relative clause constructions are realisations of the head D of this DP, whereas the relative correlate is an nP sitting in the highest Spec of the relative clause. In nonrestrictive relative clause constructions, on the other hand, the correlate is itself a DP, with the same internal syntax as any other DP. Accordingly, the presence of a restrictive relative clause has consequences for the distribution of determiners, but the presence of a nonrestrictive relative clause has none. Chapter 4 addresses demonstratives and strong quantifiers. On my analysis, elements of both types are generated above the DP. I give some arguments for this view, and I also discuss the interaction between demonstratives and the D head and between strong quantifiers and the D head. In addition, I pay some attention to the syntax of pronouns, since it appears that pronouns can often replace demonstratives or determiners in Scandinavian. Chapters 5 and 6 deal with possessed nominal phrases. The reason why this topic takes up two whole chapters is that in Scandinavian, possessor relations within nominal phrases can be expressed in a number of different ways. The possessor can be pronominal or non-pronominal, it can have overt case or lack overt case, it may precede or follow the possessed nominal, and it may or may not be accompanied by additional elements that reflect the possession relation. Moreover, the choice of possessive construction interacts with the definiteness marking of the possessed noun, such that some realisations of the possessor require that the noun is marked as definite, while other realisations of the possessor precludes definiteness marking on the possessed noun. For ease of exposition, I address postnominal possessors in chapter 5 and prenominal possessors in chapter 6. I argue that all possessors are generated in a Spec position inside nP, which is the nominal counterpart of vP. I show that, depending on their relation to n and to other functional heads in their containing nominal phrase, possessor phrases surface either in their base position or in a higher Spec position within the possessed nominal phrase. Since the noun moves to n, at least in Scandinavian, possessors that stay in their base position follow the possessed noun in the surface order, while possessors that leave this position precede the possessed noun in the surface order. In addition, some possessors have a morphological form that makes the possessor relation visible. These possessors can mark the possessor relation all by themselves. Other possessors are not able to

INTRODUCTION

xv

show any overt reflex of the possessor relation. These possessors will then be accompanied by some other element that marks the possessor relation. This, then, is another source of variation in possessed nominal phrases in Scandinavian. Chapter 7 deals with predicative nominal phrases and compares them to nominal phrases in argument position. In particular, I address the claim that nominal phrases are structurally smaller when they are predicates than when they are arguments. I identify a set of tests that can be used to single out nominal predicates, at least in Scandinavian, and I show that the nominal phrases that pass these tests in Scandinavian are not necessarily smaller than those that do not. I therefore conclude that the contrast between nominal arguments and nominal predicates is purely semantic: nominal predicates have an intensional interpretation, whereas nominal arguments may be referential. However, nominal predicates of DP size is not the only surprising thing we find in Scandinavian. There are also nominal arguments that are too small to contain quantifiers or determiners. That is, indefinite singular nominals introduced by a determiner alternate with bare singular nominals both in predicate position and in argument position. Bare singular nominals are however licensed only under certain semantic conditions, but crucially, these conditions are the same for predicates and for arguments. Thus, also in this respect are nominal predicates more similar to nominal arguments than one might have expected. Since there is so much syntactic variation to be found in nominal phrases within and across different varieties of Scandinavian, I think it is justified to devote a volume to a topic of this relatively limited scope. This does not mean that my proposals are meant to be valid only for Scandinavian. On the contrary, I think that my analysis of Scandinavian provides some tools that can be useful in the analysis of the nominal syntax of any language. Accordingly, in the final chapter, chapter 8, I give some suggestions as to how my analysis can be extended to languages outside of Scandinavian. I point to some aspects of my model that are expected to allow for cross-linguistic variation, and I give some suggestions as to how certain patterns that are attested in languages outside of Scandinavian could be accounted for.

CHAPTER 1 THE SYNTACTIC STRUCTURE OF THE DP

1.1 Introduction This chapter deals with the basic syntactic structure of the DP and with the syntax of indefinite DPs. First, in 1.2, I look at the order of constituents inside the Scandinavian DP, and from the observed order of elements I deduce the order of projections inside the DP and also the nature of each projection. In 1.3 I turn to a discussion of the syntactic properties of D, which, as we shall see, to a large extent determine the final shape of the DP in Scandinavian. In 1.4 I analyse indefinite DPs, which appear to be relatively uncomplicated syntactically. A summary follows in 1.5. 1.2 The basic syntactic structure of the DP In order to home in on a syntactic analysis of Scandinavian nominal phrases, let us start by considering the Norwegian DP in (1.1). (1.1)

NORWEGIAN1 dei to gaml-e teikning-a-ne mine DEF.PL two old-W drawing-PL-DEF my.PL by-en town-DEF.M.SG ‘my two old drawings of the town’

av of

Here the head noun teikningane “(the) drawings” is preceded by an adjective, a numeral and a determiner, and followed by a pronominal possessor and a PP. As we shall see later, the determiner could in its turn be preceded by a demonstrative and/or a quantifier, but from the determiner downwards, the maximal expansion of the Scandinavian nominal phrase is as (1.1) shows, except for the possibility of having more than one adjective. Moreover, the only way to build a nominal phrase from a determiner, a numeral, an adjectival phrase, a possessor, a PP and a head noun is to have them in exactly the order that they appear 1 Unless otherwise stated, the Norwegian examples in this work are given in Nynorsk, which is

one of the two written standards of the language (the other is Bokmål). In most cases, the choice of written standard makes no difference to the argumentation, but where it does, I will say so explicitly. Abbreviations used in the glosses are explained in the Abbreviations section.

2

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

in here. This fact gives certain indications of the syntactic structure underlying the visible ordering of elements. 1.2.1 The structure of nP On the assumption that syntactic structures are built from the bottom upwards, only two objects being combined at a time, the most reasonable proposal concerning (1.1) is that the derivation starts by building the nominal stem teikning “drawing” from the root teikn– “draw” and the nominaliser –ing, forming the PP av byen “of the town”, and then combining these two newly built objects into an NP, as illustrated in (1.2). (Here I will not go into a discussion of whether the root has a category, but see Julien (to appear).) (1.2)

NP N

√teikn

PP av byen N ing

Now note that in (1.1), the nominal stem has a plural marker and a definiteness marker suffixed to it. On the nonlexical approach to morphology, which I will adopt here without discussion (but see e.g. Baker 1988, Drijkoningen 1994, Marantz 1997, Cinque 1999, Julien 2002b), these inflectional markers must have been added in the course of the derivation. That is, the NP must combine with functional projections that supply the number and definiteness markers. Hence, I propose that the NP first combines with a Num(ber) head, and that the number feature is generated in that head, which then is spelled out as a number marker.2 The fact that the number marker ends up as a suffix on the nominal stem must mean that N moves to Num—see the argumentation in Julien (2002b) that if a stem appears with inflectional suffixes, it must be the case that the stem, which is generated below the inflectional heads, has moved to or across these heads, thereby ending up in front of the inflectional markers. In our current example, the trigger for movement may be a nominal feature in Num, and the result is as shown in (1.3). Also note that I take the possessor to be generated in Spec-NP, as indicated. It is possible, though, that the constituent that I call NP is more complex than shown here, and that the possessor is generated in a head other than N. But since I am not going to deal with the

2 According to Vangsnes (2001a) the functional category Num is absent in mass nouns. This

may well be true, but I will not deal with it here.

THE SYNTACTIC STRUCTURE OF THE DP

3

finer structure of NP anyway, I will assume that the possessor originates in Spec-NP.3 (1.3)

NumP Num N

√teikn

Num a

NP mine

N ing

N’ N

PP av byen

As for the gender of the noun, Ritter (1993) argues that it can be a feature of the Num head or of the nominal root itself. In Scandinavian, I think there is reason to believe that gender is a feature of the root or stem. For example, in Norwegian the nominaliser –ing normally gives feminine nouns, which goes well with the idea that it is the element –ing, rather than the Num head that will be merged above it, that carries the feature FEMININE. More evidence that the gender is not determined by the number marker is found in Nynorsk Norwegian. In Nynorsk, most feminine nouns take the indefinite plural marker –er, while most masculine nouns take the indefinite plural marker –ar, as in (1.4). (1.4) a. b. c.

NORWEGIAN (NYNORSK) bøk-er (F) “books” jent-er (F) “girls” lykt-er (F) “torches”

d. e. f.

båt-ar (M) “boats” frosk-ar (M) “frogs” gut-ar (M) “boys”

Some feminine nouns are however exceptional and take –ar in the indefinite plural, and conversely, some masculine nouns take –er in the indefinite plural: (1.5) a. b. c.

NORWEGIAN (NYNORSK) elv-a (F) “rivers” myr-ar (F) “bogs” øy-ar (F) “islands”

d e. f.

bekk-er (M) “brooks” gjest-er (M) “guests” ven-er (M) “friends”

3 Since Fukui (1986) it has often been assumed that possessors are generated in Spec-NP.

However, Baker (2003) claims that nouns never take specifiers at all, and that this is how nouns are distinguished from other lexical classes. In the present framework, nouns will have to be characterised in some other way, for example as those elements whose intensional meaning define kinds, that is, sets of entities. When a noun appears in a nominal phrase, its intensional meaning, and thereby also its reference, if it is referential, will be quantified and possibly specified by functional elements such as determiners and quantifiers (cf. Zamparelli 2000, Longobardi 2001).

4

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

Nevertheless, the deviant feminine nouns trigger feminine agreement on determiners, adjectives and possessors (that is how we know they are feminine), while the deviant masculine nouns trigger masculine agreement on determiners, adjectives and possessors (that is how we know they are masculine). Hence, it seems to be the case that the gender is fixed before Num is added. The conclusion is that gender is a feature of N in Scandinavian. Another interesting property of (1.1) is that the head noun precedes not only its complement PP but also the possessor. This means that the head noun must have moved, since it could not precede the possessor otherwise. Yet the noun follows the adjective and the prenominal determiner. This shows that the noun has not moved to D, the highest head of the DP. Instead, it is the prenominal determiner that occupies D. The noun nevertheless has a suffixed definite article. It has been suggested earlier by several researchers that the suffixed definite article in Scandinavian is generated in a head which is separate from N, and that it becomes suffixed as a result of N moving to that head (see Taraldsen 1990, Kester 1993, Santelmann 1993, Sigurðsson 1993, Giusti 1994, Sandström & Holmberg 1994, and the analysis of Icelandic in Vangsnes 1999). We see now that this head cannot be D. There must be a head, above Num but below the adjectives, that the N+Num complex moves to. Arguably, this head is also where suffixed definite articles are generated, not only in Norwegian, but in Scandinavian in general, with the exception of Danish (see chapter 2, section 2.7). I will call this head n, since, as we will see, it defines a (strong) phase and is able to license arguments, in which respect it is a nominal counterpart of v. In addition, at least in Scandinavian there is obligatory movement of N to n, which could be seen as a parallel to the obligatory movement of V to v postulated in Chomsky (1995).4 It now follows that the lower part of the DP in (1.1) has the syntactic structure shown in (1.6). Here the nominal stem has moved from its base position to the Num and n heads, with the result that markers of number and definiteness are suffixed to the noun. It also results in the noun preceding not only its complement, but also the possessor, which sits in Spec-NP. (The issue of possessors will be dealt with in much more detail in chapters 5 and 6.)

4 Admittedly, the designation n has been used earlier in the literature to refer to elements that

do not seem to be identical to the n that I postulate here. For example, in Marantz (2001) n is the element that supplies a nominal categorial feature to a categoryless root. In my model, the nominal category feature must already be present in NP when Num is merged, so it is clear that the category cannot come from n.

5

THE SYNTACTIC STRUCTURE OF THE DP

(1.6)

nP n Num N

√teikn

NumP n ne

Num a

Num

NP

mine

N ing

N' N

PP av byen

It should be noted that in the present model, it is not the n head that gives the construction as a whole nominal category features. The nominal features are already present in N. In this respect my model differs from the proposal put forth in Marantz (1997), for example. The designation n is chosen here because this head completes the lower phase of the syntactic structure based on a nominal, just as v completes the lower phase of the syntactic structure based on a verb (Chomsky 1999, 2001). The arguments for taking nP to be a phase will be presented in later chapters. Concerning case features, consider the Icelandic examples shown in (1.7). In the plural definite nominal in (1.7a) case is overtly marked on the plural marker as well as on the suffixed definite article. I take this to mean that the innermost inflectional marker here, showing number and case, is the spellout of Num, while the outermost inflectional marker, showing definiteness, number and case, is the spellout of n. The same is then true of the singular definite noun in (1.7b). (1.7) a.

ICELANDIC arm-ar-nir arm-PL.NOM-DEF.PL.NOM ‘the arms (NOM)’

b.

arm-s-ins arm-SG.GEN-DEF.SG.GEN ‘the arm (GEN)’

In other words, what we see in (1.7a) and (1.7b) is the complex n head, which is formed by movement of N to Num and of the N+Num complex to n. In this structure, the case feature is present both in Num and n. More generally, I see case as a feature that is found in every functional element inside the nominal phrase, so that there is no specialised CaseP projection involved.5 5 Not all languages look like Icelandic, though. In some languages case is marked only once in

a nominal phrase. The Turkish example in (i) is an illustration. (i)

Ankara ve Izmir-e Ankara and Izmir-DAT ‘to Ankara and Izmir’

6

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

1.2.2 The position of adjectives As for the elements that precede the head noun in the surface order in (1.1), we see that adjectives come closer to the noun than any other category. Many earlier treatments of Scandinavian nominal phrases, such as Santelmann (1993), Kester (1993), Sandström & Holmberg (1994) and Vangsnes (1999) take adjectives to be heads located between D and N, as in the analysis of Abney (1987). There are problems, however, with the idea that adjectives are heads in the extended nominal projection. One problem pointed out by Delsing (1993) and by Hankamer & Mikkelsen (2003) is the fact that in Scandinavian, prenominal attributive adjectives can have arguments in addition to the head noun. These arguments can be realised as DPs or as PPs, as the examples in (1.8) and (1.9) illustrate (see Platzack 1982 for some discussion).6 (1.8)

(1.9)

SWEDISH en sinai vänn-er IDF.CG.SG 3REFL.POSS.PL friend-PL ‘a man (who is) faithful to his friends’

trogen mani faithful manCG

DANISH den af sini datter stolt-e DEF.CG.SG of 3REFL.POSS.CG daughter proud-W ‘the mother (who is) proud of her daughter’

mori motherCG

To account for the fact that the adjective relates to two nominals in constructions like (1.8) and (1.9), Delsing (1993) proposes that the head noun (mann, mor) is the specifier of AP, while the other arguments (sina vänner, af sin datter) are complements of A. This would at the same time explain the fact that the head nouns bind the other arguments of the prenominal adjectives in these examples, but it implies that the specifier follows A while the complement precedes A. If we want instead to pursue an antisymmetry approach following Kayne (1994), or at least assume that specifiers are always to the left, as I will do here, we could propose that the adjectival phrase contains a phonologically empty element that is coindexed with the head noun and acts as a binder for the reflexive possessor, along the lines of Fanselow (1986). Alternatively, we As we see, we have here a coordination with the dative marker showing up only on the second conjunct. This makes the case marker look more like a postposition that has attached phonologically to its complement. I suspect that quite a few ‘case markers’ in the world’s languages should be analysed along these lines. 6 While Faroese, Icelandic and Norwegian have a three-gender system (masculine, feminine and neuter), Danish and (Standard) Swedish only distinguish neuter from non-neuter. The latter is also called common gender, and consequently, I use the gloss CG in the relevant Danish and Swedish examples.

7

THE SYNTACTIC STRUCTURE OF THE DP

could say that the adjectival phrase has been moved from a position to the right of and lower than the noun, and that the binding relation was established before the movement took place. In fact, there exist constructions that suggest quite strongly that prenominal adjectives can belong underlyingly with material that follows the noun. That is, they are somehow related to a postnominal position. Below, I give some examples of this, and I indicate with an e the phonologically empty postnominal position that the adjective is related to. (1.10) a. b.

ENGLISH (Sadler & Arnold 1994:189) a child difficult to entertain with stories a difficult child [e to entertain with stories]

(1.11)

ENGLISH (Svenonius 1994:445) a similar problem [e to this one]

(1.12)

SWEDISH (heard on radio, September 2003) en oerhört kritisk produkt [e mot dom alla] IDF.CG.SG extremely critical product towards them all.PL ‘a product that is extremely critical towards them all’

(1.13) NORWEGIAN (Klassekampen, 22.06.1996) ?? den glad-ast-e mann-en [ e for DEF.SG7 happy-SUP-W man-DEF for over] over ‘the happiest man that it now is over’

at det that it

nå er now is

Concerning (1.13), it is far from perfect. To my ear, it sounds like an island violation. But since the PP clearly belongs with the prenominal adjective, the construction nevertheless indicates that movement from postnominal to prenominal position is something that speakers do. It follows that the existence of prenominal object-taking adjectives is not necessarily relevant for the discussion of base-generated prenominal adjectives—they could all have moved from postnominal position. More reliable arguments for the phrasal nature of prenominal adjectives are based on considerations of adjectives that are modified by degree elements. On Delsing’s analysis, as well as on the head analysis, a degree element modifying the first of several adjectives would be expected to take scope over all the 7 The Norwegian determiner den is compatible with masculine gender as well as with feminine

gender. It contrasts with the neuter singular form det. I take the vocabulary item den to be unmarked for gender, and I assume that because of this, it can be inserted in a node that has either of the features MASCULINE or FEMININE . For this reason, I gloss den simply as DEF.SG.

8

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

adjectives that follow it, as noted by Svenonius (1994). But as the example in (1.14a) demonstrates, this is not borne out. Instead, the degree element altfor “much too” only modifies the adjective heit “hot”. There is no implication that the coffee is too strong as well. That is, the degree element only takes scope over the adjective that it is adjacent to. (1.14) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN alt-for heit sterk kaffe all-too hot strong coffee ‘much too hot strong coffee’ [[altfor [heit]] [sterk] kaffe]

This suggests that the modifier and the first adjective form a phrase that excludes the second adjective and the nominal. The second adjective must then also form a phrase that excludes the nominal, as indicated in (1.14b). On the other hand, if the two adjectives are coordinated, a preceding modifier can take scope over both adjectives, as illustrated in (1.15a).8 In this case, there must be a complex adjectival phrase containing the two coordinated adjectives, and the modifier must be outside the coordinated structure, so that it can take scope over both coordinates. I sketch this in (1.15b). (1.15) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN alt-for heit og sterk kaffe all-too hot and strong coffee ‘much too hot and strong coffee’ [[altfor [heit og sterk]] kaffe]

An analysis that sees adjectives as heads in the extended nominal projection will run into problems with coordination of adjectives, given that a conjunction is generally taken to form a phrase together with the two conjuncts (see Johannessen 1998). My conclusion is that adjectives are phrasal constituents of the nominal phrase.9 The properties demonstrated in (1.14) and (1.15) are then unproblematic: phrases may of course be more or less complex. 8 The string in (1.15a) can also be parsed as follows: [[[altfor heit] og [sterk]] kaffe], with

[altfor heit] as one coordinate and [sterk] as the other. The prosody will to some degree disambiguate the expression. 9 Baker (2003:196) argues that in English, attributive adjectives do not project phrases, as they do not take complements or combine with degree elements: (i)a. * the proud of Mary parent b. * the {too/so} proud parent

9

THE SYNTACTIC STRUCTURE OF THE DP

Now the question is whether APs are adjoined to some projection of N, as Svenonius (1994) argues, or sit in the specifier positions of (designated) heads in the nominal extended projection, as proposed in Cinque (1994). Within Scandinavian, there is in fact an indication that Cinque’s proposal is the correct one. In some dialects of Northern Swedish, indefinite articles may appear after prenominal adjectives (see Delsing 1993). This is also marginally possible in Norwegian, as shown in (1.16) (see Vannebo 1972). (1.16)

NORWEGIAN ? eit stor-t eit styg-t eit IDF.N.SG big-N.SG IDF.N.SG ugly-N.SG IDF.N.SG ‘a big ugly house’

hus houseN

These articles do not represent the adjectival agreement—the adjectival agreement is spelled out by the suffixes on the adjectives. Hence, it appears that the articles are not contained in the adjective phrases. Instead, they are realisations of functional heads that have the adjectival phrases in their Specs. I will refer to these heads as α heads.10 It has been observed that adjectives of different semantic classes obey certain ordering restrictions that are more or less universal (see e.g. Cinque 1994). The reason for this could be that there is differentiation among the α heads, such that each α head allows only adjectival phrases of one specific semantic class to appear in its Spec. If this is the case, the designation α is a simplification, since we have in reality a hierarchy of adjective-related functional heads in the DP that parallels the hierarchy of adverb-related heads found in the IP, argued for by Cinque (1999). For an elaboration of this view on adjectives, see Scott (2002). Alternatively, the order of adjectives inside DP could follow directly from the semantic properties of the adjectives themselves, in the same way as Nilsen (2003) argues that adverb ordering inside IP is due to semantic properties of the adverbs. I will not go into this discussion here, however, and

The facts are different in Scandinavian. Even if we set aside the ability of an attributive adjective to take a complement, there is the possibility of combining an adjective with a degree element, as in (1.14) and (1.15). Moreover, the exact counterpart of (ib) is grammatical in Scandinavian, as the Norwegian example in (ii) illustrates. Hence, I think there is no doubt that attributive adjectives project phrases in Scandinavian. The properties of English attributive adjectives then remain to be explained. (ii)

den

{så/altfor/like} heit-e kaffe-n so/too/just.as hot-W coffee-DEF ‘the so/too/just as hot coffee’ 10 My αP corresponds roughly to AgrP in Giusti (1997) and to nP in Holmberg (1993) and Fassi Fehri (1999). DEF.SG

10

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

for simplicity I will continue to refer to the adjective-related heads as α heads.11 1.2.3 The higher projections in DP In front of the adjectives are numerals and other weak quantifiers.12 This means that the projection hosting these elements must be above the αP projections (cf. Löbel 1989, Cinque 1996, Duffield 1996, Vangsnes 1999, 2001a, Zamparelli 2000). To avoid confusion with NumP, I have termed this projection CardP.13 The examples in (1.17) show that cardinal numerals and weak quantifiers can be phrasal. I will refer to these phrases as WQPs, and I take them to be located in the Spec of the Card head.

11 As Baker (2003) notes, Dixon (1982) observes that even in languages that have very few

adjectives, the concepts ‘good’ and ‘bad’, ‘big’ and ‘small’, ‘old’ and ‘new’, ‘black’ and ‘white’ tend to be expressible as adjectives. This is intriguing, since it suggests that all languages have at least the adjectives that correspond most closely to the core meanings of the α heads, with positive and negative settings. Another class of elements that might be realisations of the α heads are diminutives, augmentatives and similar markers that appear on nouns. To take an example, K wakw’ala, a language where adjectives normally precede nouns, has a handful of adjectival elements that appear as suffixes on nouns. As described in Boas (1911:493), these suffixes have the meanings ‘big’, ‘small’, ‘fine’, and ‘bad’ or ‘ugly’. Some examples are given in (i). (i)a.

L!a ¯'qwa-dze¯

copper-large ‘large copper’

b. q! a¯ku-bido¯ε slave-little ‘little slave’

c. bEgw-o ¯lε-bido ¯ε man-ugly-little ‘ugly little man’

If the suffixes in (i) are realisations of α heads, both their small number and their position can be explained. In the proposal of Cinque (1994), there is a limited number of α heads. Each head takes adjectives of a certain type in its specifier position. For example, there is one head associated with size adjectives and another head associated with evaluative adjectives. It is to be expected that whereas there are several adjectives of each type, only crude distinctions like ±BIG and ±GOOD can be encoded in the α heads themselves. Hence, the possible realisations of α heads should be relatively few. Further, if there is head movement of the noun into the adjectival domain, we would expect the realisations of the α heads to be suffixed to the noun. The only problematic aspect of the Kwak w’ala data is that in (ic), the evaluative suffix precedes the diminutive suffix, which, on the head movement analysis, means that the size head must be higher than the evaluative head. This is the opposite of the order that Cinque (1994) takes to be the universal one. I will not go further into this here, however, but leave it as a possible topic for future investigations. 12 The term ‘quantifier’ is sometimes used to refer to the whole DP—see, for example, Barwise & Cooper (1981). Elements like ‘many’, ‘ten’ and ‘more than ten’ are then called ‘determiners’. But it is clear from examples like those in (1.17) that we need to distinguish the elements in D, which I call determiners, from the expressions that indicate number or amount. For lack of a better term, I refer to the latter as ‘quantifiers’. 13 The NumP projections that have been proposed earlier in the literature (see e.g. Delfitto & Schroten 1991, Ritter 1991, Cornilescu 1995, Duffield 1996, Schoorlemmer 1998, Alexiadou 2001, Vangsnes 2001a) could correspond to my CardP or to my NumP. I will not go into the individual proposals here.

11

THE SYNTACTIC STRUCTURE OF THE DP

(1.17) a.

NORWEGIAN dei meir enn ti veldig gaml-e hus-a DEF.PL more than ten very old-W house-DEF.PL ‘the more than ten very old houses’

b.

desse alt-for mange u-interessert-e student-a-ne these all-too many un-interested-W student-PL-DEF ‘these all too many uninterested students’

c.

minst fire interessert-e student-ar at.least four interested-W student-PL ‘at least four interested students’

d.

alt-for få interessert-e student-ar all-too few interested-W student-PL ‘much too few interested students’

Finally, on top of CardP we find the DP layer. In (1.1), and also in (1.17a), this is seen from the fact that there is a determiner in front of the numeral. Hence, I propose that the syntactic structure of the whole DP in (1.1) is as shown in (1.18). (1.18)

DP D dei

CardP WQP to

Card' αP

Card

α'

AP gamle α

nP n

Num N teikn

Num a N ing

NumP n ne

Num

NP

mine

N' N

PP av byen

12

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

Of the projections shown here, I take NP, NumP, nP (and DP) to be present in every Scandinavian DP. These projections contain features that are essential to the interpretation of the DP as a whole. CardP and αP, on the other hand, are only generated when they contain lexical material. Also note that in this model, every functional element that is introduced into the structure will agree with the elements that are already there (cf. Sigurðsson 2004). The n head shares the features of Num, and in addition, it carries a definiteness feature. If an α head is merged with nP, the α head will come to share all the features of n. The possibility of spelling out the α heads as articles, as in (1.16), is a visible consequence of this agreement. Moreover, an adjectival phrase merged in Spec-αP, or more correctly, the functional elements inside this phrase, will agree with α and thereby also with n.14 The same holds for Card and WQP and also for D. More specifically, I assume that each head is generated with a set of unvalued features, and that these features must be valued by agreement with an element that has valued features (cf. Chomsky 1999). In the terms of Chomsky (1999, 2001), the head is a probe, seeking a goal, that is, an element with valued features. But importantly, the agreement relations in themselves do not require overt movement. They are established with the probe and the goal in their base positions (cf. Chomsky 1998, 1999). Furthermore, the agreeing features are not necessarily visible in every case on all the constituents that are involved in agreement relations. There is a lot of variation in this respect. Sometimes all agreeing features are spelled out on both probe and goal, sometimes only a subset of the relevant features is spelled out on one of the relevant constituents, and sometimes one or more features are not spelled out at all. This means that underlying agreement relations may or may not go with visible agreement, as Sigurðsson (2004) emphasises. As for ordinal numerals, the example in (1.19) indicates that they are in the same position as cardinal numerals, that is, in Spec-CardP. (1.19)

NORWEGIAN den sjette stor-e siger-en DEF.SG sixth big-W victory-DEF.M.SG ‘the sixth big victory of the year’

for for

år-et year-DEF.N.SG

The examples in (1.20), on the other hand, seem to show that ordinals may cooccur with cardinals, and either follow them, as in (1.20a), or precede them, as in (1.20b).

14 Kester (1996) has a similar view on adjectival agreement.

13

THE SYNTACTIC STRUCTURE OF THE DP

(1.20) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN dei fire først-e DEF.PL four first-DEF ‘the four first applicants’

søkar-a-ne applicant-PL-DEF

dei

først-e fire søkar-a-ne first-DEF four applicant-PL-DEF ‘the first four applicants’ DEF.PL

However, the only ordinals in Mainland Scandinavian to show this behaviour are those meaning “first”, “last” and also “other”, which is identical to, or at least homonymous with, the word for “second”. If we try to replace “first” in (1.20ab) with “third”, for example, with the intended interpretation “the third group of four applicants”, the resulting constructions are ungrammatical: (1.21) NORWEGIAN a. * dei fire tredje DEF.PL four third b. * dei DEF.PL

tredje third

søkar-a-ne applicant-PL-DEF

fire søkar-a-ne four applicant-PL-DEF

Moreover, while adjectives normally follow numerals, they can alternatively precede numerals and take scope over them. For example, after lifting ten litres of candyfloss one could felicitously utter (1.22a), and faced with two or more ten-litre units, one of which is lighter than the others, (1.22b) is perfectly acceptable and focuses lette “light”. (1.22) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN Dette er dei lettast-e ti litr-a-ne this is DEF.PL lightest-W ten litre-PL-DEF ‘This is the lightest ten litres I ever lifted.’ Ta dei lett-e ti take DEF.PL light-W ten ‘Take the light ten litres!’

eg har løfta. I have lifted

litr-a-ne! litre-PL-DEF

Hence, the elements “first”, “last” and “other” pattern not with ordinal numerals but with adjectives. Morphologically, først “first” and sist “last” are also inflected like adjectives in the superlative, whereas annan “second; other” inflects like an adjective in the positive. I conclude that først, sist and annan are adjectives, and that there is a position between CardP and D to which these and other adjectives can move for focus/scope effects (we will hear more of this

14

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

position later on). Concerning regular ordinals, such as the Norwegian tredje “third”, I take them to share the syntactic position of cardinals. In the remainder of this work I will not have much more to say about the αP and CardP projections. The internal syntax of the nP, as well as the syntactic properties of the DP projection, will however be dealt with in much detail in the following chapters. 1.3 The identification of D Arguably, much of what goes on inside Scandinavian nominal phrases has to do with the requirements of the DP projection. Exactly what this means will be clearer as we proceed, but in this section, the basic ideas will be presented, starting with Longobardi (2001), who notes that there are two ways in which a nominal argument can be assigned a denotation: either the nominal itself refers directly, or else the denotation arises through a quantificational structure, where the nominal is connected to a variable that is bound by an existential or generic operator. In the latter case, the DP may always be introduced by an empty DP projection. This is illustrated by the Italian examples in (1.23). (1.23a) shows a DP that is inserted in an existential environment, and (1.23b) shows a DP that is inserted in a generic environment. In either case, D is empty. (1.23) a.

b.

ITALIAN [DP e Elefanti di colore bianco] hanno creato in passato elephants of colour white have created in past grande curiosità. great curiosity ‘White coloured elephants raised a lot of curiosity in the past.’ [DP e Cani da guardia di grosse dimensoni] dogs of guard of great dimensions efficienti. efficient ‘Watch dogs of large size are more efficient.’

sono più are more

Longobardi further observes that in Italian and other Romance languages, argumental nominals that are specifically referring, i.e. not existential or generic, are always introduced by a D node that has phonologically overt material in it. For example, in Italian, proper names, which are prototypical referring expressions, either appear with a determiner, as in (1.24a), or else move themselves to D, as in (1.24b). Leaving D empty, as in (1.24c), is ungrammatical.

15

THE SYNTACTIC STRUCTURE OF THE DP

(1.24) a.

b.

ITALIAN L’ antica Roma the ancient Rome Roma Rome

(fu distrutta dai was destroyed by.the

antica (fu distrutta dai ancient was destroyed by.the

barbari ). barbarians

barbari ). barbarians

c. * [DP e Antica Roma] (fu distrutta dai ancient Rome was destroyed by.the

barbari ). barbarians

In Italian the requirement that the D-position must be filled extends to DPs that function as kind names. The example in (1.25) demonstrates this. (1.25)

ITALIAN [DP *(Gli) elefanti di colore bianco] sono estinti. the elephants of colour white are extinct ‘White coloured elephants are extinct.’

In Germanic, on the other hand, kind names allow the D-position to be empty. Thus, in all Germanic languages we find examples parallel to (1.26). (1.26)

ENGLISH [DP e White elephants] have become extinct.

With proper names the situation is a bit more complicated. While (1.27) is acceptable in English its counterparts in other Germanic languages require an overt determiner, as in the Norwegian example in (1.28). (1.27)

ENGLISH [DP e Ancient Rome] was destroyed by the barbarians.

(1.28)

NORWEGIAN [DP *(Det) gaml-e Roma] vart øydelagt av DEF.N.SG old-W Rome became destroyed by barbar-a-ne. barbarian-PL-DEF ‘Ancient Rome was destroyed by the barbarians.’

In the Icelandic counterpart to (1.28) the name moves to Spec-DP even though D itself is preferably spelled out:

16

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

(1.29)

ICELANDIC [DP Róm ??(hin) forn-a] var lögð í eyði af Rome DEF.M.SG old-W was destroyed by barbör-um. barbarian-DAT.PL ‘Ancient Rome was destroyed by barbarians.’

The presence of the determiner in (1.28) and (1.29) apparently has to do with the restrictiveness of the adjective. If a proper name combines with a nonrestrictive adjective, D can be empty even in Norwegian, although it can also be filled, as (1.30) shows.15 (1.30) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN [DP e Vesle Anna] little.W.SG Anna ‘Little Anna got a doll.’ Den vesle Anna DEF.SG little.W.SG Anna ‘Little Anna got a doll.’

fekk got

ei IDF.F.SG

dokke. doll

fekk ei got IDF.F.SG

dokke. doll

The examples below show that in Icelandic, the best solution even in such cases is to move the name to the initial position in the DP. We also see here that common nouns do not undergo this movement. (1.31) a.

ICELANDIC [DP Anna litla ] fékk dúkku. Anna.NOM little.W.SG got doll ‘Little Anna got a doll.’

b. ? [DP e Litla Anna] little.W.SG Anna ‘Little Anna got a doll.’ c.

fékk dúkku. got doll

[DP e Litla systir ] fékk dúkku. little.W.SG sister.NOM got doll ‘Little sister got a doll.’

15 Colloquial German and many dialects of Mainland Scandinavian use a determiner with all

person names, though—see chapter 5, section 5.6. Thus, the contrast between Romance and Germanic is not as clear-cut as Longobardi (2001) seems to suggest.

THE SYNTACTIC STRUCTURE OF THE DP

d. * [DP

17

Systir litla ] fékk dúkku. sister.NOM little.W.SG got doll

Constructions like (1.30a) and (1.31b) are not grammatical in Italian (cf. Longobardi 1994). According to Longobardi (2001), this contrast has to do with the syntactic function of empty D-nodes. In languages like Italian an empty D-node always implies a quantificational structure, and it follows that in cases where the nominal refers directly, as proper names and kind names do, the D-position must be filled. In Germanic, by contrast, an empty D-node does not necessarily imply a quantificational structure, and accordingly, referential expressions such as proper names and kind names may appear with an empty D-node. Longobardi (2001) attributes this difference to the strength of D. He suggests that the referential properties of D are weak in Germanic but strong in Romance. As a consequence, Germanic DPs can have a referential reading even if the D position is not associated with overt material, while in Romance, referentiality requires that there is overt material in D.16 The Scandinavian data can be taken to essentially corroborate Longobardi’s analysis. It appears that the DP projection can be phonologically empty in Scandinavian when the reference of the DP as a whole equals the set that is picked out by αP/nP; that is, by those elements of the nominal phrase that have descriptive content. Following Stroh-Wollin (2003) I will call this set the set of selection. The reference of the DP equals the set of selection when αP contains a proper name, as in (1.30a), and when the αP is a kind-referring expression, as in (1.32a). In accordance with Longobardi’s account, the DP projection can also be empty when the DP involves a variable that is bound by an existential or generic operator outside the DP. An example of this, involving a generic operator, is shown in (1.32b). (1.32) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN Kvit-e nashorn er nesten white-W rhinos are nearly ‘White rhinos are nearly extinct.’ Kvit-e kattar er ofte white-W cats are often ‘White cats are often deaf.’

utrydda. extinct

døv-e. deaf-W

When the reference of the DP relative to the set of selection is not specified, as is the case with indefinite singular mass nouns (milk) and indefinite plural 16 Note that the idea that D is empty in certain cases is at odds with the suggestion put forth in

Chomsky (1998) that in apparent instances of a null D, D is really absent.

18

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

nouns (cats), D can also be empty even if the DP is an argument. However, whenever the reference of the DP is specified relative to the set of selection, but is neither determined by an operator outside the DP nor comes from αP or nP alone, the reference of the DP depends on D. More precisely, it is D that specifies the reference of the DP relative to the set of selection. In such cases, D must be identified, that is, it must be made visible. Hence, the DP projection cannot be phonologically empty.17 There must be phonologically overt material either in D or in Spec-DP. In addition, the highest projection of the DP must have a nominal category feature, which is understood as the ability to have a referential index (cf. Baker 2003). Without this property present in the topmost layer the DP as a whole cannot be referential. But notably, making D visible does not a priori mean that all features in D must be spelled out. There are many features that are relevant to D. In Scandinavian, D elements show number and gender distinctions, in addition to being overtly definite or indefinite. In Faroese and Icelandic, D elements also have morphological case. As we shall see later, it appears that overt realisation of the definiteness feature is of particular importance in most Scandinavian varieties, except in Icelandic, where morphological case plays a significant role. I will argue in the remainder of this chapter and in the next chapter that the different word orders we find in Scandinavian DPs can be explained on the basis of this model. I will show that different varieties of Scandinavian employ different strategies to provide the DP level with phonologically overt material of the right kind. The result is considerable variation in the ordering of constituents inside the DP. One strategy is to insert a lexical item directly in D. As we will see, this is what happens in indefinite singular DPs in all Scandinavian varieties, with the exception of Icelandic, and in definite DPs with prenominal determiners. In definite DPs without prenominal determiners D is made visible by moving a constituent agreeing with D to Spec-DP. In Norwegian, Swedish and Faroese, the projection that moves is nP, but in Icelandic and Northern Swedish, it is αP. Finally, I propose that in Danish definite DPs with suffixed articles, spelling out D is combined with movement of nP to Spec-DP. 1.4 Indefinite DPs In indefinite DPs, D will as usual get its features valued by agreement with the lower heads, minimally with n. But unlike n heads with a DEFINITE feature, n heads without this feature have no phonological realisation in Scandinavian. This might be an indication that indefiniteness should not be seen as the expression of a –DEFINITE feature, but rather as the absence of any definiteness feature, which is exactly what the adjectival inflection in Scandinavian seems 17 My concept of identification is closely related to concepts found e.g. in Giusti (1997),

Roberts & Roussou (1999a, 1999b) and Vangsnes (1999).

THE SYNTACTIC STRUCTURE OF THE DP

19

to suggest (see chapter 2, section 2.4). Moreover, in all varieties of Scandinavian, indefinite plural DPs often appear without a determiner, as illustrated in (1.30a) and (1.32) above. The same holds for singular mass nouns, as shown in (1.33).18 (1.33)

NORWEGIAN Eg har kjøp-t mjølk. I have-PRES buy-PAST milk ‘I have bought milk.’

In these cases, the features of D do not get a local phonological realisation. Hence, the reference of the DP is not specified by D. It is either equal to the set of selection or determined in an operator–variable relation.

18 In Northern Swedish dialects, mass nouns often appear with a suffixed article, as in (i), an

example taken from Delsing (1993:50). (i)

Hä finns vattn-e there exists water-(DEF.N.SG) ‘There is water in the bucket.’

ti hink-en. in bucket-DEF.M.SG

As indicated, this suffixed article is identical in form to the ordinary suffixed definite article. It does not get a definite interpretation, however. Delsing (1993) argues that it has partitive content. Delsing (2003b) suggests that a similar phenomenon might be found in some Norwegian dialects, in particular in the Trøndelag area. However, the examples that he refers to are not convincing. Firstly, there is Iversen (1918), who mentions that in the Tromsø dialect, names and generic nouns may appear with a suffixed definite article. Both types are arguably very different from (i). Secondly, there is the following example from the Sunndalen dialect, taken from Jenstad (1985:247): (ii)

å ha {go/dårlig} to have good/poor ‘to be well/badly off’

rå-a means-DEF .F.SG

Thirdly, Delsing’s own informant from Fosen accepts definite forms in certain predicate nouns, as in (iii): (iii)

Det er sommar-n. it is summer-DEF.M.SG ‘It is summer.’

However, the idiom in (ii) and expressions like (iii) (with seasons or parts of the day as predicates) are quite common in Norwegian, also in dialects that by no means allow constructions like (i). My own dialect, from Solør, in the southeast of Norway, is an example. Moreover, it is not necessarily the case, as far as I can see, that the definite articles in (ii) and (iii) have partitive content. Hence, there is no close connection between the Northern Swedish partitive article on the one hand and the Norwegian definite nominals mentioned by Delsing on the other. (The example in (iii) may be related to the depictive definite nominals exemplified in chapter 2, example (2.8).)

20

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

However, an indefinite plural DP without a determiner does not establish a discourse referent that one can subsequently refer to with a pronoun. This is illustrated in (1.34a) (cf. Vangsnes 1999:59). (1.34) a.

NORWEGIAN Eg vil snakke med legar. I want talk with doctors

# Dei arbeid-er her. they work-PRES here

b.

Eg I

vil snakke med to legar. want talk with two doctors

c.

Eg I

vil snakke med noen want talk with some

Dei arbeid-er her. they work-PRES here

legar. Dei arbeid-er her. doctors they work-PRES here

To establish a discourse referent, some element must be added that can restrict the reference of the DP relative to the set of selection. As we see in (1.34b), numerals can perform this function. Presumably, numerals may move to SpecDP if the DP is indefinite, even if, as we shall see in the next chapter, they cannot identify a definite D. As for the element noen in (1.34c), it is possible to interpret it as quantifier, corresponding to the English some, but when it is unstressed, it seems more correct to characterise it as an indefinite plural determiner, corresponding to the English sm, as Börjars (1998) suggests for the corresponding Swedish element några.19 In indefinite singular DPs that do not have a mass reading, the reference of the DP must be specified by D. Then the features shared by D and n are realised phonologically by means of an indefinite determiner in D. The result is exemplified by ein kanin “a rabbit” in (1.35). (1.35)

NORWEGIAN Eg såg ein kanin i hage-n. I saw IDF.M.SG rabbitM in garden-DEF.M.SG ‘I saw a rabbit in the garden.’

An element that looks identical to the indefinite determiner can appear on its own in argument position, as in (1.36). (1.36)

NORWEGIAN Der SE-R eg there see-PRES I ‘There I see one.’

ein. one.M

19 That the English sm is the plural form of a was proposed already by Carlson (1977).

THE SYNTACTIC STRUCTURE OF THE DP

21

If ein is unstressed here, its numeral reading is toned down, so that it seems like we are dealing with the indefinite determiner and not with the numeral. But using the indefinite determiner as an argument on its own requires that it is clear from the context what sort of entity the element in question refers to. Thus, ein in (1.36) is a DP proform, and its replacement could be a full DP. The ability to stand alone as an argument is a sign of a nominal feature. I therefore take (1.36) as an indication that the indefinite determiner has a nominal feature. Since its form also reflects the indefiniteness of D, it suffices to identify D, and the reference of the DP is restricted to one member of the set denoted by αP. However, there are indications that the indefinite determiner originates below D. As we see in (1.37), a definite singular determiner can co-occur with the numeral “one”, while an indefinite singular determiner cannot do so. (1.37) a.

NORWEGIAN den ei-ne katt-a DEF.SG one-w cat-DEF.F.SG ‘one of the cats’

b. * ei IDF.F.SG

ei one.F.SG

katte catF

One might want to suggest that (1.37b) is out for semantic reasons: the determiner and the numeral have the same features and therefore having both is redundant. But this does not seem very likely, given (1.37a), where the determiner also encodes singular number, so that the numeral is in this respect just as redundant as in (1.37b). A more promising proposal is, in my view, that the indefinite determiner originates in Card, and that it moves to D if the nominal phrase is an indefinite DP.20 Now recall that the indefinite plural determiner is formally identical to a weak quantifier, that is, to an element that originates in Spec-CardP, according to my analysis. This is further illustrated by the examples in (1.38). The example in (1.38a) is parallel to (1.36), except that the singular indefinite determiner is replaced by the plural form noen “some”. Again, the unstressed noen is more determiner-like than quantifier-like in its interpretation. And strikingly, if noen is replaced by an element that unambiguously is a (weak) quantifier, such as mange “many”, while the sentential stress remains on the verb, as in (1.38b), the discourse-related properties of the construction change. When stressed, the verb in (1.38b) is contrastively focused, or more precisely, one of the syntactic elements that build up the verb form ser is; that is, either polarity, tense, or the 20 Cf. Lyons (1999), who suggests that the indefinite singular article in English is a cardinal

number.

22

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

lexical verb root is contrasted with some other possible choice. In (1.38a), by contrast, there is no such focus effect even if the verb bears stress. (1.38) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN Der SE-R eg there see-PRES I ‘There I see some.’ Der SE-R eg there see-PRES I ‘There I SEE many.’

noen. some.PL

mange. many

I believe that the reason for this is that in (1.38a), stressing the verb is the least marked option, since the elements that follow the verb are a pronoun and a determiner, which both are normally unstressed. But in (1.38b), the last word of the clause is a quantifier, and the least marked option is to have sentential stress on this element. When the sentential stress falls on the verb instead, we have a marked situation where the verb is necessarily focused.21 My conclusion is that indefinite singular determiners as well as indefinite plural determiners originate in the CardP projection. Since they are so similar to numerals and quantifiers, it is possible that they are first merged in SpecCardP, so that they are not realisations of the Card head. In any case, they move to the DP projection and spell out the number feature of the indefinite D, and, in the singular, also the gender feature. The only variety of Scandinavian that does not have an indefinite determiner is Icelandic. As we see from the examples in (1.39), the distinction between singular mass nouns and singular count nouns is not overtly marked in this language.

21 This is not particular to Scandinavian. For example, we find the same situation in English:

unstressed sm is a proform, arguably a determiner, while stressed some is a quantifier and patterns with other quantifiers—see (i). (i)a. b. c.

I SEE sm. (proform) I see SOME. (quantifier) I see MANY . (quantifier)

But while English some is like Norwegian noen “some” and its counterparts in other Scandinavian varieties in that it appears with or without an accompanying noun, the singular indefinite article is different from the corresponding proform in English—a versus one. However, I think the latter fact is a matter of spellout, and I do not see it as evidence that a and one are not both realisations of a singular and indefinite element.

THE SYNTACTIC STRUCTURE OF THE DP

(1.39) a.

b.

23

ICELANDIC Það ligg-ur [DP e græn-t epli ] á it lie-PRES.3SG green-N.SG.NOM apple.NOM on borði-nu. table-DEF22 ‘There is a green apple lying on the table.’ Það er [DP e kald-ur bjór ] i ís-skápi-num. it is cold-M.SG.NOM beer.NOM in ice-cupboard-DEF ‘There is (a) cold beer in the fridge.’

Apparently, the DP projection is empty in both cases, and the reading that the singular DP gets is determined by the lexical content of the noun and by the context—note the ambiguity of (1.39b) (see Vangsnes 1999). In this respect, Icelandic differs from other Scandinavian varieties, which have a determiner in D in singular DPs with a count reading. The fact that Icelandic allows the DP projection to be empty in all indefinite DPs must mean that the referentiality of indefinite DPs does not depend on the visibility of D. This suggests that referentiality as such does not depend on D in Icelandic, although the inclusive reference of a definite DP is, as we will see in the next chapter. I propose that it is the overt case that enables an indefinite DP to be interpreted as referential in Icelandic.23 As Holmberg (1994) points out, on the basis of a survey of a number of European languages, languages have either articles, morphological case, or both.24 This fact suggests that articles and morphological case serve the same function of marking a DP as referential. A language that has morphological case therefore does not need articles to mark a DP as referential. Now what about Faroese, which has both morphological case and an indefinite singular determiner, as (1.40) illustrates. (1.40)

FAROESE eitt IDF.N.SG.NOM ‘a new house’

ny´tt new.N.SG.NOM

hús houseN

22 Where the gender (or case) of a definiteness marker is not crucial for the argumentation, I will often gloss the marker simply as DEF. 23 Cf. Holmberg & Sandström (1996a), who suggest that in Icelandic DPs, case plays the role

that definiteness has in Mainland Scandinavian. 24 Outside of Europe, there are nevertheless languages that have neither articles nor morphological case. Although it would need to be verified, my guess is that such a language would have classifiers, which probably also serve to make the DP referential (see e.g. Cheng & Sybesma 1999).

24

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

There are at least two points that are relevant here. First, from the generalisation that a language must have either an indefinite singular determiner or morphological case it does not follow that no language can have both. As noted by Holmberg (1994), quite a few languages do actually have determiners in combination with morphological case. Second, as pointed out by Vangsnes (1999), the case morphology in spoken Faroese is in the process of losing a number of distinctions. It is therefore conceivable that the case system of Faroese has already been eroded so much that case is no longer able to mark the DP as referential, and that because of this the indefinite singular determiner has become obligatory with singular count nouns in argument position. Also note that in (1.40) the adjective agrees visibly with the noun and the determiner. However, in many cases this agreement is not visible, because nonneuter singular indefinite adjectives have zero marking in Norwegian, Swedish and Danish. Adjectival inflection will be dealt with in more detail in chapter 2, section 2.4. In all varieties of Scandinavian it holds that if an adjective or a numeral is included in an indefinite DP this has no consequences for the noun and the determiners. When an α head or a Card head is merged over nP, this head has definiteness and φ-features that come to agree with those of n. In the next step, an AP is merged in Spec-αP and/or a WQP is merged in Spec-CardP. The features of the AP and of the numeral will then agree with those of α and Card, respectively. Finally, D is merged and has its features valued, either by n or, if they are present, by higher heads. The spelling out of D as an indefinite determiner then applies under the same conditions as in indefinite DPs without adjectives or numerals. 1.5 Summary In this chapter, I have identified the projections that are found in a maximally expanded DP. Below the DP layer itself the projection that I call nP is of particular importance in Scandinavian. The N head always moves to n, and it is in n that the suffixed definite article is generated, with the exception of Danish. I have argued that in referential DPs, with the exception of indefinite singular DPs in Icelandic, the D head must be visible if the reference of the DP as a whole is dependent on D. D is visible if there is phonologically overt material in D or in Spec-DP. I have also dealt with indefinite nominal phrases, which do not display any movement in Scandinavian except for the obligatory movement of N to Num and n. The only variation that we find in Scandinavian indefinite DPs has to do with the realisation of D. In indefinite plural DPs, and in indefinite singular DPs based on mass nouns, D can be phonologically empty. But in other indefinite DPs, the reference of the DP is dependent on D, and consequently, D must be spelled out as an indefinite determiner, except in Icelandic, where there is

THE SYNTACTIC STRUCTURE OF THE DP

25

no indefinite singular determiner. In my view, it is instead the morphological case that enables an indefinite DP to be interpreted as referential in Icelandic. Finally, unlike definiteness markers, which can be suffixed to the head noun, indefinite determiners in Scandinavian are always prenominal. I take them all to be located in the DP projection, although they are arguably introduced in the CardP projection.

CHAPTER 2 DEFINITE DPS

2.1 Introduction This chapter deals with the syntax of Scandinavian definite DPs, and in particular with the distribution of prenominal and suffixed definiteness markers in these phrases. First, in 2.2, I look at definite DPs in the varieties that have ‘double definiteness’, that is, Swedish, Norwegian and Faroese. Following up on this, I deal with the relation between D and n in definite DPs in 2.3 and with adjectival inflection in 2.4. I then discuss Icelandic definite DPs in 2.5 and Northern Swedish definite DPs in 2.6. The topic of 2.7 is Danish, including the West Jutlandic dialects. Section 2.8 deals with a class of exceptional nouns that do not combine with nominal inflection, and a summary follows in 2.9. 2.2 ‘Double definiteness’ In the ‘double definiteness’ varieties of Scandinavian, that is Norwegian, Swedish and Faroese, a definite DP that does not contain any prenominal modifiers (adjectives, numerals, or weak quantifiers) has only a suffixed definite article and no prenominal determiner, while in definite DPs that do contain prenominal modifiers, the suffixed definite article co-occurs with a prenominal definite determiner. This is illustrated for Norwegian in (2.1), for Swedish in (2.2), and for Faroese in (2.3). (2.1) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN skjort-a shirt-DEF.F.SG ‘the shirt’ den

gul-e skjort-a yellow-W shirt-DEF.F.SG ‘the yellow shirt’ DEF.SG

c.

dei

(to/mange) gul-e skjort-e-ne two/many yellow-W shirt-PL-DEF ‘the (two/many) yellow shirts’ DEF.PL

27

DEFINITE DPS

d. * dei

skjort-e-ne shirt-PL-DEF ‘the shirts’ DEF.PL

(2.2) a.

b.

SWEDISH hus-et house-DEF.N.SG ‘the house’ det

gul-a hus-et yellow-W house-DEF.N.SG ‘the yellow house’ DEF.N.SG

(2.3) a.

b.

FAROESE kettlingur-in kitten-DEF.M.SG.NOM ‘the kitten’ tann svart-i DEF.M.SG.NOM black-W.M.SG.NOM ‘the black kitten’

kettlingur-in kitten-DEF.M.SG.NOM

We also see here that the prenominal determiner agrees with the suffixed noun in number and gender, and in Faroese also in case. The adjective, on the other hand, is marked with the so-called ‘weak’ inflection. In Faroese (and Icelandic) the weak inflection shows some variation according to gender, case and number.1 In Norwegian (and Danish) the weak inflection is an invariant –e, and in Swedish it is –a, except when the noun denotes a male person, in which cases the ending is –e. 2.2.1 The nature of the noun movement to the DP projection In previous analyses of the ‘double definiteness’ construction it has been assumed that in definite DPs, the noun head-moves to D if no adjective intervenes. The adjective is then taken to be a head located between D and N. Given 1 The whole paradigm for definite adjectives in Faroese and Icelandic looks as follows:

Nominative Accusative Genitive Dative

Masculine Singular Plural -i -u -a -u -a -u -a -u

Feminine Singular Plural -a -u -u -u -u -u -u -u

Neuter Singular Plural -a -u -a -u -a -u -a -u

28

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

the Head Movement Constraint, it follows that the movement of N to D will be blocked when an adjective is present. When movement of N to D is blocked, the prenominal determiner is inserted in D, either to make D visible (Santelmann 1993, Delsing 1993), to bind the adjectival inflection (Kester 1993), or to give the definite D a host (Embick & Noyer 2001). Related proposals are found in Sandström & Holmberg (1994) and Vangsnes (1999). A problem with these analyses is that it is not explained why we cannot have movement of N to A and of N+A to D. On the other hand, if analysing the adjectives as heads in the nominal projection line is wrong, and adjectives are phrasal constituents that sit in Spec positions above where the noun is basegenerated, as I claimed in the preceding chapter, one wonders why the noun cannot move through the heads that have the adjectives in their Spec. What I will propose is that the movement that is blocked by the adjective in the ‘double definiteness’ construction is not head movement but phrasal movement. In the varieties under discussion a definite DP without prenominal modifiers, such as (2.1a), is then derived as follows. N moves via Num to n so that the definite n head ends up realised as a suffixed definite article. Since this is the only definiteness marker present, D is not spelled out at all. But if it is true that there must be phonologically overt material in the DP projection whenever the reference of the DP depends on D, there must be overt material in the DP projection even here. The solution is, on my analysis, to move nP to Spec-DP. In other words, the syntactic structure of (2.1a) is as shown in (2.4).2 (2.4)

DP nP n Num N skjort

NumP n a

Num

D'

Num

D

nP

NP | N

2 The notation used in (2.4) appears to indicate that the nominal root is a minimal projection

that projects on its own to a maximal projection. The reason why I represent N and NP as separate levels is that I want to show that the nominal head moves to Num without dragging along other constituents inside NP, if there are any. I use a similar notation in other places in this work, but it should not be interpreted as a suggestion that an element cannot be both minimal and maximal at the same time (cf. Chomsky 1995).

DEFINITE DPS

29

Recall that D already agrees with n. Since the Agree relation is also a part of the operation Move (Chomsky 1998, 1999, 2001), the only additional operation that is needed to get the configuration in (2.4) is to merge nP and D. 2.2.2 Blocking of nP-movement In DPs containing adjectives, numerals, or weak quantifiers, overt movement of nP to Spec-DP is blocked. Note that I take NP, NumP, nP and DP to be obligatorily present in every DP, while αP and CardP are only generated when they contain lexical material. Now as mentioned above, an AP that is merged in Spec-αP will agree with α, which in turn agrees with n. Hence, when D is merged above an αP with an AP in its Spec, the AP will be the closest goal for the probe D. Similarly, if a numeral or quantifier is merged in Spec-CardP, the numeral or quantifier will be the closest goal for the probe D, since the Card head as well as the numerals or quantifiers themselves agree (ultimately) with the complex n head. But crucially, moving an adjective or a numeral/quantifier to Spec-DP will not serve to identify the definite D. The problem with adjectives is probably that they do not have a nominal category feature, and accordingly no referential index (Baker 2003). In the languages under discussion here, adjectives that take on a referential function must be accompanied by a determiner or by a demonstrative. This is illustrated in (2.5). (2.5) a.

NORWEGIAN *(den/denne) raud-e DEF.SG/this red-W ‘the/this red one (M/F)’

b.

*(det/dette) raud-e DEF.N.SG/this.N red-W ‘the/this red one (N)’

c.

*(ein) raud (ein) IDF.M.SG red one.M ‘a red one (M)’

d.

*(eit) raud-t IDF.N.SG red-N.SG ‘a red one (N)’

(eit) one.N

In these cases, the role of the demonstrative or determiner must be to carry the referential index of the phrase as a whole. And as we see, the demonstrative or determiner is obligatory both in the definite and in the indefinite, even though the (in)definiteness of the phrase is reflected in the form of the adjective, and in

30

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

the indefinite, the adjective is even marked for number and gender. This shows that the determiner/demonstrative has a function over and above the spelling out of the definiteness, case and φ-features of D. Its function is also to enable the phrase as a whole to be referential. The problem with numerals and weak quantifiers is that they do not spell out any definiteness feature. Consider the Norwegian examples in (2.6). (2.6) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN Eg se-r {fem/mange} katt-ar. I see-PRES five/many cat-PL ‘I see five/many cats.’ Eg se-r dei {fem/mange} katt-a-ne. I see-PRES DEF.PL five/many cat-PL-DEF ‘I see the five/many cats.’

As we see, numerals and quantifiers have the same form regardless of the definiteness of the nominal phrase they appear in. That is, their form is compatible with the presence of a DEFINITE feature as well as with its absence. Although a few numerals are in fact inflected in the languages under discussion— in Faroese, the numerals 1 to 3, and in Mainland Scandinavian, the numeral 1—the vast majority of numerals are not.3 That is, most numerals, like adjectives, are unable to identify a definite D. This is apparently generalised to the class of numerals and weak quantifiers as a whole. 2.2.3 Definite nominal phrases with an empty DP projection The claim that numerals and adjectives cannot identify a definite D does not mean that the derivation necessarily crashes if an AP or a numeral/weak quantifier is the highest element of a definite nominal phrase. It is interesting to note that Norwegian, Swedish and Faroese do have nominal phrases of exactly this

3 The following Swedish examples serve to illustrate the Mainland Scandinavian pattern:

(i)a.

en katt one.CG catCG ‘one cat’

(ii)a. ett hus one.N houseN ‘one house’

b. den

en-a katt-en one-W cat-DEF.CG.SG ‘the one cat; one of the cats’ DEF.CG.SG

b. det

en-a hus-et one-W house-DEF.N.SG ‘the one house; one of the houses’ DEF.N.SG

In Faroese, the numeral ein “one” is inflected for gender, number and case, while tveir “two” and tríggir “three” show some distinctions according to gender and case.

31

DEFINITE DPS

type. But as expected, the distribution of definite DPs without a visible DP projection is fairly restricted. In Norwegian, Swedish and Faroese, a definite nominal phrase containing an adjective but lacking an prenominal determiner can be a vocative, as in (2.7), it can have a depictive function, as in (2.8) (cf. Lundeby 1981), and it can even appear in argument position if it contains a proper name, as in (2.9), or if it is a proper name, as in (2.10).4 4 In Norwegian, there is also a construction where a nominal phrase consisting of an adjective and a noun with a suffixed article but without a prenominal determiner appears in predicate or argument positions following the negation. Some examples of this rather peculiar construction are shown in (i).

(i)a.

Ho var ikkje stor-e jent-a. she was not big-W girl-DEF.F.SG ‘She was no big girl.’

b.

Vi gikk ikkje lang-e stykke-t. we walked not long-W bit-DEF.N .SG ‘We did not walk a long distance.’

c.

Dei sa ikkje mange ord-a. they said not many word-DEF.PL ‘They did not say many words.’

In these cases, the adjective is obligatory, and moreover, it must be a scalar adjective representing the upper end of the scale. A notable semantic property of the construction is that it is nevertheless the opposite end of the scale that is implied. I show in (ii) that (ib) becomes ungrammatical if the adjective lang “long” is replaced by kort “short”, as in (iia), and also if the negation is left out, as in (iib). If there is no negation, or if the adjective does not represent the upper end of a scale, an ordinary indefinite DP must be used, as in (iic) and (iid). (ii)a. * Vi we

gikk walked

ikkje kort-e not short-W

b. * Vi we

gikk walked

lang-e long-W

stykke-t. bit-DEF.N .SG

stykke-t. bit-DEF.N .SG

c.

Vi gikk eit lang-t we walked IDF.N.SG long-N.SG ‘We walked a long distance.’

d.

Vi gikk ikkje noko we walked not any.N.SG ‘We did not walk a short distance.’

stykke. bit kort short.N.SG

stykke. bit

The ungrammaticality of (iib) shows that phrases of the form lange stykket are negative polarity items. Their interpretation as having a much stronger meaning than what is explicitly asserted is something they have in common with many other negative polarity items (see van der Wouden 1996). Their ability to appear without a determiner must have to do with the fact that

32

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

(2.7)

(2.8)

(2.9)

(2.10)

NORWEGIAN Veit du ikkje det, (*den) know.PRES you not that, DEF.SG ‘Don’t you know that, you big girl!’

stor-e big-W

NORWEGIAN Det var (*den) svart-e natt-a it was DEF.SG black-W night-DEF.F.SG ‘It was dark night when she came.’ NORWEGIAN (=1.30a) Vesle Anna fekk ei little.DEF.SG Anna got IDF.F.SG ‘Little Anna got a doll.’

jent-a! girl-DEF.F.SG

da ho when she

kom came

dokke. dollF

NORWEGIAN Vi besøkte [DP e Gaml-e Loge-n ] we visited old-W lodge-DEF.M.SG ‘We visited The Old Lodge [a concert hall in Oslo].’

When the prenominal determiner is absent from such constructions, D is not associated with overt material. Accordingly, the phrases do not get their reference specified by D. In (2.7) and (2.8) this is not a problem since the relevant nominal phrases are not referential anyway. In (2.9) and (2.10), the reference of the DP equals the set picked out by αP, and accordingly, the DP is acceptable in an argument position even if the DP projection is empty. Moreover, in certain cases a phrase of the form [Adjective Noun+Def], without a prenominal determiner, may appear in argument position even if it is not a proper name and does not contain a proper name. This is exemplified for Norwegian in (2.11) (cf. Delsing 1993). (2.11) a.

NORWEGIAN Du kan ta den ny-e bil-en. you can take DEF.SG new-W car-DEF.M.SG ‘You can take the new car.’

b. % Du kan ta ny-e bil-en. you can take new-W car-DEF.M.SG ‘You can take the new car.’ they are not required to have a specified reference. In fact, due to the negation they really have no reference at all. The details of the analysis still remain to be worked out, however.

DEFINITE DPS

c.

Ho løft-a den venstre hand-a. she lift-PAST DEF.SG left hand-DEF.F.SG ‘She raised her left hand.’

d.

Ho løft-a venstre hand-a. she lift-PAST left hand-DEF.F.SG ‘She raised her left hand.’

33

As far as I can see, the difference between (2.11a) and (2.11b) has to do with the treatment of the existential presupposition that the definite DP carries with it. In a situation where the referent of the definite DP has not been previously mentioned or entailed by the context, (2.11a), the version with the determiner, readily allows the existential presupposition to be accommodated (see Lewis 1979). That is, when hearing (2.11a), the hearer will accept that there is a unique new car in the universe of discourse, even if this was not known to her before. The version in (2.11b) is less felicitous in the same situation. In the terms of Roberts (2003), the discourse referent of the DP in (2.11b) must be strongly familiar.5 This is then what lies behind the intuition that DPs of this type take on a name-like function (see Lockwood 1977 on Faroese, Kester 1996 and Platzack 2000 on Swedish). But note that while constructions like (2.11b) are quite frequent in Swedish, they are not accepted by all speakers of Norwegian —there is some geographic variation in this matter. When (2.11b) is rejected, the reason is probably the violation of the requirement that the highest projection should have a visible nominal category feature. Apparently, this requirement can be set aside in some varieties, under certain conditions, but not in others. The difference between (2.11c) and (2.11d) is less noticeable than that between (2.11a) and (2.11b), and we can now see why. Once the reference of the pronoun ho is sorted out, so that it is clear that it refers to a person, it follows implicitly that there is a unique left hand associated with this person. Thus, we have a case of what Clark (1977) termed indirect reference by association. Hence, it does not matter very much whether the D of the object DP is spelled out or not, since it will in any case be easy to resolve the reference of that DP and the presupposition that goes with it. It is even possible that the object DP involves a phonologically empty possessor that is bound by the subject, so that the reference of the DP is in fact specified from outside of the DP.6 Consequently, (2.11d) is more widely accepted than (2.11b). In fact, in Scandinavian 5 Kester (1996) says that the preadjectival determiner is optional when the DP has deictic

reference, as opposed to being discourse anaphoric. If I understand ‘deictic reference’ correctly, it is not enough. See also the discussion of the examples in (4.44), chapter 4. 6 See, for example, the proposal in Vergnaud and Zubizarreta (1992) that an inalienably possessed noun comes with a possessor argument even when the possessor is not visible.

34

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

definite DPs referring to body parts appear with an empty DP projection relatively often.7 2.2.4 Prenominal determiners It is clear, though, that normally, if a definite nominal phrase with a prenominal modifier is to be an argument, some operation is necessary to make D visible and to enable the DP projection to carry a referential index. Since adjectives and numerals/quantifiers do not suffice, and nP cannot move to Spec-DP due to the intervention of the modifier, the only solution is to spell out D itself as a prenominal determiner. The result is a ‘double definiteness’ construction. Note that the prenominal determiners are formally identical to (distal) demonstratives in all three languages under discussion. Demonstratives can function as argumental nominal phrases on their own, as in (2.12), which is an indication that they have nominal features. (2.12)

SWEDISH Jag tar denna. I take this.CG ‘I take this one.’

In addition, they are definite. Accordingly, I assume that because of their feature specifications, the prenominal determiners, when inserted in D, satisfy all the requirements of a definite D. Another indication that the reference of the DP is dependent on the visibility of D is the following.8 In (2.13), two coordination structures are shown. In (2.13a), each coordinate has a phonologically realised D, and the construction as a whole can refer to two persons. In (2.13b), where only the first conjunct has a phonologically realised D, the construction as a whole refers to only one person.9 7 In Scandinavian, the possessor of a body part is not normally expressed if it is bound by

some other argument. But note that alienable possession can also allow the possessor to be unexpressed, if the possessor is easily accommodated, as in the following Norwegian example: (i)

Ho svingte med vesk-a. she swung with bag-DEF ‘She swung her bag.’ 8 Thanks to Anders Holmberg for pointing this out to me. 9 That is, Scandinavian does not generally allow a split reading of coordinated singular NPs (or αPs)—cf. Heycock & Zamparelli (2000). But if it is pragmatically impossible for the two coordinates to have the same reference, we get a split reading even if there is only one prenominal determiner. Thus, in the following Swedish example, from Börjars (1998:59), the second prenominal determiner is optional:

35

DEFINITE DPS

(2.13) a.

b.

SWEDISH den ung-e professor-n och den nyblivn-e DEF.CG.SG young-W professor-DEF and DEF.CG.SG recent-W fader-n father-DEF ‘the young professor and the recent father [one or two persons]’ den

ung-e professor-n och nyblivn-e young-W professor-DEF and recent-W ‘the young professor and recent father [one person]’ DEF.CG.SG

fader-n father-DEF

Thus, the reference of the construction is dependent on the realisation of the D heads. The fact that all nouns in (2.13) have a definite suffixed article, for example, plays no role in this matter. 2.3 On D and n The preceding discussion may have given the impression that the suffixed definite article, hence the n head, has no effect on the syntax and semantics of the nominal phrase except in the cases where a projection containing n moves to Spec-DP. That is, it appears that the semantics and the external syntactic properties of the nominal phrase are dependent on D but not on n, and that n is just a mediator between D and the elements below n. Moreover, the traditional term ‘double definiteness’ suggests that there is a certain redundancy in the constructions referred to, as if the prenominal determiner and the suffixed article have exactly the same content and function. However, there are indications in the double definiteness varieties of Scandinavian that the suffixed article, that is the n head, makes its own contribution to the semantics of the nominal phrase as a whole. 2.3.1 Definiteness and specificity The contribution of the suffixed article can be seen in examples like those in (2.14). In (2.14a), where the nominal phrase dei verste bøllar “the worst brutes” has a prenominal determiner but no suffixed article on the noun, it gets an intensional reading. That is, no specific set of brutes is referred to. In (2.14b), on the other hand, where there is a suffixed definite article on the noun, in addition to the prenominal determiner, the interpretation we get is that there is a specific set of brutes to which the subject of the clause is compared.

(i)

de

hög-a bänk-ar-na och tall-W bench-PL-DEF and ‘the tall benches and (the) low chairs’ DEF.PL

?(de)

låg-a

DEF.PL low-W

stol-ar-na chair-PL-DEF

36

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

That is, it appears that when n is spelled out in a definite nominal phrase it triggers a specific reading which is absent if n is not spelled out. (2.14) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN Dei oppfører seg som dei verst-e bøll-ar. they behave 3REFL as DEF.PL worst-W brute-PL ‘They behave like the worst brutes [whoever those are].’ Dei oppfører seg som dei verst-e bøll-a-ne. they behave 3REFL as DEF.PL worst-W brute-PL-DEF ‘They behave like the worst brutes [and we know who those are].’

A similar contrast is seen in (2.15). In (2.15a), where the suffixed article is absent, the nominal phrase is interpreted non-referentially. But in (2.15b), where the suffixed article is present, a referential reading is forced. Since the collocation den fjernaste aning “the faintest idea” is an idiomatic negative polarity item, the version in (2.15b) is not so easy to assign a meaning, but it will have to be something along the line that I have suggested. (2.15) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN Ho hadde ikkje den fjern-ast-e she had not DEF.SG distant-SUP-W ‘She hadn’t the faintest idea.’

aning. notion

Ho hadde ikkje den fjern-ast-e aning-a. she had not DEF.SG distant-SUP-W notion-DEF ‘She was not the one to have the most far-fetched notion.’

In (2.16a) we have a context that invites a generic reading of the subject DP. As indicated, the suffixed article is then optional in the presence of a prenominal determiner. But in (2.16b), where only an individual reference reading of the subject DP is possible, the suffixed article is obligatory. 10

10 A similar example is given by Faarlund et al. (1997:308), who moreover refer to nouns lack-

ing a suffixed article as ‘indefinite’, even in constructions like (2.16a). It seems clear to me that in such cases, the noun is ‘indefinite’ only in the sense that there is no definiteness marker morphologically attached to the nominal stem.

37

DEFINITE DPS

(2.16) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN Den kvit-e mann(-en) har alltid undertrykt andre DEF.SG white-W man-DEF.SG has always oppressed other kultur-ar. culture-PL ‘The white man has always oppressed other cultures.’ Den kvit-e mann*(-en) åt DEF.SG white-W man-DEF.SG ate ‘The white man ate an ice-cream.’

ein an

is. ice

In the examples in (2.17) and (2.18) the suffixed article is optional when the definite nominal phrase gets an abstract interpretation, but obligatory when the same nominal phrase gets a concrete interpretation. (I use Bokmål here because in Nynorsk, as in colloquial spoken Norwegian, the suffixed definite article is less often left out in constructions like (2.17a) and (2.18a).) (2.17) a.

b.

(2.18) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN (BOKMÅL) Han er en lærer av den gaml-e skole(-n). he is a teacher of DEF.SG old-W school-DEF ‘He is a teacher of the old school.’ Vi så på den gaml-e skole*(-n). we saw at DEF.SG old-W school-DEF ‘We looked at the old school.’ NORWEGIAN (BOKMÅL) Vi gjorde det med (den) stør-st-e fornøyelse(*-n). we did it with DEF.SG big-SUP-W pleasure(-DEF) ‘We did it with the greatest pleasure.’ Den stør-st-e fornøyelse*(-n) var pariser-hjul-et. DEF.SG big-SUP-W pleasure-DEF was parisian-wheel-DEF ‘The greatest pleasure was the ferris wheel.’

In Swedish, the suffixed article is normally left out in nominal phrases with a non-specific reading, if there is a prenominal determiner—see (2.19a). When the phrase has a concrete reading, by contrast, the suffixed definite article is present, as in (2.19b). Note, by the way, that in Swedish there is a tendency to leave out the prenominal determiner in front of an adjective in the superlative, presumably because the reference of the nominal phrase as a whole is then determined by αP. (The tendency is also found in some Norwegian dialects, by the way.)

38

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

(2.19) a.

b.

SWEDISH ((a) from Delsing 1993:120) Vi följer utveckling-en med (det) störst-a we follow development-DEF with DEF.N.SG greatest-W interesse(*-t). interest(*-DEF) ‘We are following the development with the greatest interest.’ (Det) störst-a interesse*(-t) rikta-s mot DEF.N.SG greatest-W interest(*-DEF) direct-PASS to All-svensk-an. all-Swedish-DEF ‘The greatest interest concerns the Swedish national soccer league.’

The examples in (2.20) are included to show that we also get the specific/ nonspecific contrast with mass nouns. Hence, countability is not relevant to the phenomenon we are looking at. (2.20) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN (BOKMÅL) Olje kalle-s iblant ‘det sort-e gull’. oil call-PASS sometimes DEF.N.SG black-W goldN ‘Oil is sometimes called ‘the black gold’.’ Jeg lik-er det hvit-e gull-et I like-PRES DEF.N.SG white-W gold-DEF.N.SG enn det gul-e gull-et. than DEF.N.SG yellow-W gold-DEF.N.SG ‘I like the white gold better than the yellow gold.’

bedre better

We can now summarise our findings as follows. In Norwegian, the suffixed article can be left out in a definite nominal phrase if the phrase gets a nonspecific reading and a prenominal determiner is present. In Swedish, it must be left out in such cases. A specific definite nominal phrase, on the other hand, must have a suffixed article. This means that a specific reading is only possible if the n head is spelled out. The semantic content of definiteness is often taken to be specificity and uniqueness (see e.g. Enç 1991, Abbott 1999). However, as Lyons (1999) points out, inclusiveness is a more precise term than uniqueness, since inclusiveness applies to singular, plural and mass nouns alike, whereas uniqueness appears to apply only to singular countable nouns. Lyons (1999:11) defines inclusiveness as the situation when “the reference is to the totality of the objects or the mass in the context which satisfy the description”. The examples we have just seen suggest that the two aspects of definiteness reside in different heads, such that n encodes specificity while D encodes inclusiveness. From a purely syntactic

DEFINITE DPS

39

point of view, however, I take the relevant feature to be DEFINITE in either case. Semantically, a DEFINITE feature in n tends to be interpreted as specificity, while a DEFINITE feature in D is interpreted as inclusiveness (although this is more complicated than it may seem—see e.g. Roberts 2003 for an insightful discussion). A definite nominal phrase that has a specific and inclusive reading must then have a positive setting in both these heads, in which case the n head is spelled out as a suffixed article in the double definiteness varieties of Scandinavian. If no adjectives or weak quantifiers are present, nP moves to SpecDP, so that D also gets a phonological identification, and a specific and inclusive reading results. If nP-movement is blocked by prenominal modifiers, the definite D gets its own phonological realisation, and the semantic result is the same. But if a specific reading is not intended, n need not be spelled out if it has not moved to D. The fact that the n head is nevertheless definite suggests that the suffixed ‘definite’ article is not necessarily always a marker of definiteness as such; it can also be a marker of specificity.11 2.3.2 Definiteness and superlatives Now the reader may have noted that several of the examples presented above involve an adjective in the superlative. Although we get the same contrast between specific and nonspecific readings in DPs containing adjectives in the positive grade, as (2.16), (2.17) and (2.20) demonstrate, there is a striking connection between the superlative and definiteness (which has been observed before; see e.g. Lyons 1999). In fact, adjectives in the superlative appear to trigger a kind of definiteness when they appear in nominal phrases. Consider the following Norwegian examples. In (2.21) I show that when the superlative adjectives minst “smallest” and høgast “highest, tallest” function as predicates, the only inflectional marker that they carry is the superlative marker. But when they appear inside a nominal phrase, they get an additional –e suffix even if the nominal phrase is indefinite—see (2.22).

11 Kester (1996), who also concludes that the suffixed definiteness marker in Scandinavian has

to do with specificity, points to the following contrast in Swedish vocatives, originally noted by Delsing (1993): (i)a.

polis! police

b. polis-en! police-DEF

The (ia) example is used when calling out for police in general, whereas (ib) is appropriate when addressing a specific policeman or policewoman (in sight). Since they are vocatives, these nominals may not be DPs at all, but they clearly include an n head, which encodes specificity, as elsewhere.

40

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

(2.21) a.

b.

(2.22) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN Den grå katt-a er minst. DEF.SG grey cat-DEF.F.SG is smallest ‘The grey cat is smallest.’ Brita er høg-ast. Brita is tall-SUP ‘Brita is tallest.’ NORWEGIAN Vi vart einige om ein we became agreed about IDF.M.SG innsats. contributionM ‘We agreed on a minimum contribution.’

minst-e smallest-W

Dei trur på eit høg-ast-e they believe on IDF.N.SG high-SUP-W ‘They believe in a supreme being.’

vesen. beingN

One possibility is that the –e suffix that appears on the superlative adjectives in (2.22) is simply the default realisation of an Agr element that is obligatorily present when the adjective is in prenominal position (a more detailed discussion of the Agr element follows in the next section). However, elsewhere the suffixed –e, which is often referred to as the ‘weak inflection’, marks either plurality or definiteness. Since it is very unlikely that –e should mark plurality in (2.22a) or (2.22b), we might ask whether it reflects definiteness here. At first, this does not seem very likely either. Normally, an adjective will become definite through agreement with α and ultimately with n. In the cases at hand, n and D are indefinite, and we would expect the adjective to be indefinite as well. But consider now (2.23a), where a superlative adjective appears with a prenominal definite determiner. This example is Swedish and taken from Delsing (1993), but parallel examples could be constructed in Danish and Norwegian. We see that the nominal phrase is still allowed to be the associate of the expletive in the presentational expletive construction, which is somewhat surprising, as the ability to appear in this frame is normally taken to prove that the nominal phrase is indefinite. Note, though, that in (2.23a) the noun has no suffixed definite article. If the suffixed definite article is present, the nominal phrase can no longer appear in this particular syntactic environment—see (2.23b). And if the form of the adjective is changed from the superlative to the positive, as in (2.23c), the effect is the same. If a nominal phrase in the presentational expletive construction contains an adjective in the positive degree,

41

DEFINITE DPS

the whole nominal phrase including the adjective must be indefinite, as in (2.23d). (2.23) a.

SWEDISH (cf. Delsing 1993:128) Det sitter den vackr-ast-e prinsessa i torn-et. it sits DEF.CG.SG beautiful-SUP-W princess in tower-DEF ‘There is sitting the most beautiful princess in the tower.’

b. * Det sitter den vackr-ast-e prinsessa-n i it sits DEF.CG.SG beautiful-SUP-W princess-DEF in torn-et. tower-DEF c. * Det sitter den vackr-a prinsessa(-n) it sits DEF.CG.SG beautiful-W princess(-DEF) d.

i torn-et. in tower-DEF

Det sitter en vacker prinsessa i torn-et. it sits IDF.CG.SG beautiful.CG.SG princess in tower-DEF ‘There is a beautiful princess sitting in the tower.’

Thus, the definiteness seen in (2.23a) seems to be a special kind of definiteness triggered by the superlative. It may be due to the inclusiveness that the superlative itself suggests (see Roberts 2003). Since this definiteness is confined to the adjectival phrase, it does not give rise to the readings that go with definiteness features that are located in n or D. That is, this type of definiteness is not associated with semantic definiteness for the DP as a whole. A relevant observation, pointed out by Woisetschlaeger (1983) and Lyons (1999), among others, is that the definiteness effect seen in expletive constructions apparently has to do with semantic properties that are distinct from formal definiteness. For example, Woisetschlaeger (1983) notes that a formally definite DP behaves as an indefinite if it denotes a generic concept. More generally, it seems that formally definite DPs are acceptable in the postverbal position of existential constructions if they do not have a specific and inclusive interpretation. In the case of the postverbal nominal phrase in (2.23a), its lack of specificity is seen by the obligatory absence of the suffixed definiteness marker. It is more unexpected that the interpretation does not involve inclusiveness either, given that there is a prenominal definite determiner.12 How12 Baker (2003:123 n. 18) suggests that in English, a definite determiner that combines with an

adjective in the superlative can be part of the AP. More precisely, in expressions like Chris is the tallest and I pounded this piece of metal the flattest, Baker takes the preadjectival determiner to be a realisation of a Deg head inside the AP. If a similar analysis were available for Scandinavian, the presence of the determiner in (2.23a) would be less problematic. However,

42

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

ever, Vangsnes (1994, 1999) shows other examples of nominal phrases that are not semantically definite even though they include a prenominal definite element. Two of them are given in (2.24) and (2.25). (2.24)

ENGLISH There was this girl at the party yesterday.

(2.25)

NORWEGIAN Det var DEN fyr-en på fest-en i går. it was THAT guy-DEF at party-DEF yesterday ‘There was this gorgeous guy at the party yesterday.’

According to Vangsnes (1999), this in (2.24) signals specificity but not uniqueness. The element den in (2.25) could be seen as a distal demonstrative or as a definite determiner. In any case, its semantic contribution here is to signal that the referent of the nominal phrase has certain relevant properties to an exceptionally high degree (see Vangsnes 1994, 1999). Thus, neither in (2.24) nor in (2.25) is the postverbal nominal phrase assigned an inclusive interpretation. In Baker’s analysis does not seem to go through for Scandinavian. In Scandinavian, resultative superlative adjectives always appear without a preposed determiner—see (ia). Superlative adjectives that are primary predicates can apparently combine with a determiner, as in (ib). But they can also appear without one, as in (ic) (these examples are Norwegian). (i)a.

Eg banka denne flat-ast. I pounded this flat-SUP ‘I pounded this one the flattest.’

b.

Chris er den høg-ast-e. Chris is DEF.SG tall-SUP-W ‘Chris is the tallest.’

c.

Chris er høg-ast. Chris is tall-SUP ‘Chris is tallest.’

When there is a determiner in front of the superlative adjective, the adjective also has a suffixed definiteness marker—see (ib). This marker is missing when there is no preposed determiner—see (ic). As I show in the next section, adjectives in Scandinavian are marked for definiteness only when they are contained in a nominal phrase. Hence, the predicate in (ib) must be a nominal phrase with an empty nominal head. Crucially, the noun can be phonologically empty in Scandinavian nominal phrases as long as an adjective is present. No dummy element like one is necessary, except in certain cases when the deleted noun refers to a person, as in (Norwegian example) Du er ein rar ein “You are a funny one”. It follows that the preposed determiner in (ib) belongs to the extended nominal projection and not to the extended adjectival projection. In (ic), on the other hand, the predicate is probably an AP, but then no determiner is allowed. I conclude that definite determiners preceding superlative adjectives in Scandinavian belong to the nominal projection.

DEFINITE DPS

43

Vangsnes’ terms, these phrases are not uniquely referring, and according to him, a formally definite nominal phrase escapes the definiteness effect if it is not uniquely referring. It is then not semantically definite.13 I conclude that what we have in (2.23a) is a similar phenomenon to what we see in (2.24) and (2.25). In spite of its appearance, the postverbal nominal phrase is not semantically definite. It clearly matters that there is no definite n, which can be seen from the absence of a suffixed definite article. Hence, the presence of the prenominal definite determiner seems to be dependent on the superlative feature of the adjective rather than by a definiteness feature in n. This must be the reason why the determiner does not signal that the DP has an inclusive reading. It also seems to be relevant, however, that the superlative is not interpreted literally in (2.23a).14 Note that in this example, the prenominal determiner cannot be left out. On the other hand, if a DP contains an adjective in the superlative, and that adjective gets a literal interpretation, the DP projection can be left empty. The example in (2.26a) shows this. For the phrase (den) beste bilen “the best car” inclusiveness is guaranteed by the superlative adjective (see Roberts 2003). In combination with the visibly definite and singular n, this entails that the DP as a whole is semantically definite and refers to one car. (2.26) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN Dei diskuterte kven som hadde (den) best-e bil-en. they discussed who RC had DEF.SG best-W car-DEF ‘They discussed who had the best car.’ Dei diskuterte kven som hadde *(den) best-e. they discussed who RC had DEF.SG best-W ‘They discussed who had the best one.’

But as (2.26b) demonstrates, if the noun is left phonologically empty, the prenominal determiner is obligatory. In such cases, there is no suffixed definite article, and consequently, the features shared by D and n must be realised in D. 2.3.3 Movement to Spec-DP versus spellout of D 13 Faarlund et al. (1997:836) also observe that definite nominal phrases that are acceptable as

associates of expletives are normally not uniquely referring. But in addition they give a few examples that appear to be exceptional in this respect, such as the following: (i)

Det står namn-et ditt på dør-a. it stands name-DEF.N .SG your.N.SG on door-DEF.F.SG ‘There is your name on the door.’ 14 Cf. Lyons (1999:248), who points out that superlatives behave like definites in expletive constructions only when they get a literal interpretation.

44

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

We can now give an answer to a question that arises concerning DPs without prenominal modifiers: why is it that one cannot spell out D itself in DPs of this type? In other words, why do we get (2.27a) and not (2.27b), with a prenominal determiner?15 (2.27) a.

NORWEGIAN hus-et house-DEF.N.SG ‘the house’

b. * det DEF.N.SG

hus(-et) house-DEF.N.SG

‘the house’

One might think that if Merge is preferred over Move (Chomsky 1998), we would get (2.27b), with or without the suffixed article, and not (2.27a). But as it appears, the Merge vs. Move issue is not relevant here after all. The derivation starts by merging N and Num, and after that, n is merged, with a definiteness feature. Since the DP is going to have a specific reading, n will be spelled out, or at least come with an instruction that it should be spelled out. The suffixed article will then necessarily appear. In the next step, D is merged. Now the DP projection needs a phonological realisation. There are then two options: either nP must move or D must be given a phonological realisation. In terms of the number of operations, these two options are equal. Since D already agrees with n, the only additional operation that is necessary to derive (2.27a) is merger of nP in Spec-DP, whereas the only additional operation that is necessary to derive (2.27b) is retrieving an item from the lexicon to spell out D. Apparently, since (2.27a) is preferred to (2.27b), the introduction of the extra lexical item in (2.27b) is more costly than the extra Merge in (2.27a). This could be taken as support for the suggestion in Chomsky (2001) that internal Merge is in principle free. 2.4. Adjectival inflection The claim put forward in section 2.2 that in the double definiteness varieties of Scandinavian, adjectives marked with the weak inflection share the features of D and n, and because of this, they block the raising of nP, seems to need some clarification, since the weak inflection has sometimes been analysed as a ‘dummy’ inflection without any semantic content (see e.g. Kester 1993). If this were the case, we would not expect weak adjectives to interfere with the movement of nP to Spec-DP. However, I will claim below that an adjective that carries the weak suffix is fully specified underlyingly. After that, I will take a closer look at the syntactic structure of adjectival phrases.

15 The example in (2.27b) is grammatical if det is a (distal) demonstrative, in which case det

will be stressed.

45

DEFINITE DPS

2.4.1 The realisation of agreement Let us first take a look at the patterns of agreement marking on adjectives in Scandinavian. An adjective in an indefinite nominal phrase normally carries so-called strong inflection. For Faroese and Icelandic, this means that it agrees visibly with the nominal in number, gender and case, as the Icelandic example in (2.28) shows. (2.28)

ICELANDIC (=1.39a) Það ligg-ur græn-t epli á it lie-PRES.3SG green-N.SG.NOM apple.N.SG.NOM on borði-nu. table-DEF ‘There is a green apple lying on the table.’

In Mainland Scandinavian, it only shows number and gender, as illustrated in (2.29a). An adjective in a definite nominal phrase, on the other hand, will carry the so-called weak inflection, which shows fewer distinctions, as mentioned in section 2.2. In fact, in Danish and Norwegian the weak inflection is invariant; it is always realised as –e, as exemplified in (2.29b). In predicative adjectival phrases, there is again visible agreement between the adjective and the subject, except that the definiteness of the subject is not reflected in the adjective—see (2.29c) and (2.29d).16 (2.29) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN eit fin-t hus IDF.N.SG nice-N.SG house ‘a nice house’ det

fin-e hus-et nice-W house-DEF.N.SG ‘the nice house’ DEF.N.SG

16 Kester (1996:67) observes that postnominal adjectives pattern in the same way as predica-

tive adjectives. One of her Swedish examples is the following: (i)

Det här vädr-et, kall-t och klar-t, this here weather-DEF.N.SG cold-N.SG and clear-N.SG riktig svensk vinter. real Swedish winter ‘This weather, cold and clear, feels like real Swedish winter.’

känns som feels as

As we see, the definiteness of the nominal is not reflected in the adjectives kallt and klart. My proposal is that these adjectives are in fact predicative, as they constitute a reduced relative clause. Note that the expression could easily be expanded into a full relative clause: som är kallt og klart “that is cold and clear”.

46

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

c.

Hus-et er house-DEF.N.SG is ‘The house is nice.’

d.

Eit

fin-t. nice-N.SG

slik-t hus IDF.N.SG such-N.SG house ‘A house like that is nice.’

er fin-t. is nice-N.SG

The framework I will use to analyse the adjectival inflection is Distributed Morphology, which was introduced in Halle & Marantz (1993, 1994). According to this approach, every morpheme is an abstract feature bundle during syntax building, and at Spellout, each bundle is paired with a lexical item that gives the bundle its phonological realisation. But crucially, the lexical item that serves as the realisation of a given bundle need not be specified for all the features that the bundle contains. What is required is that the lexical item is specified for more relevant features than any other item, and that it is not specified for any feature that is not present in the bundle. I assume that when an adjective appears inside a DP, it has an abstract agreement morpheme that shares all the features of α, which are identical to the features of n and D. The fact that adjectives in indefinite DPs inflect like predicative adjectives could be taken to mean that the realisation of the adjectival agreement never makes reference to indefiniteness features. Alternatively, as mentioned in the previous chapter, it might be that indefiniteness simply means absence of any definiteness feature, so that adjectival phrases contained in indefinite DPs have the same feature makeup as predicative adjectival phrases, which never have a definiteness feature since they are not inserted in a nominal environment. Taking the latter to be true, I show in (2.30) every feature combination that a Norwegian adjective in the positive degree can have, along with the phonological realisation of each combination. (2.30)

Norwegian: the positive paradigm of fin “fine”

ATTRIBUTIVE

ATTRIBUTIVE

INDEFINITE

DEFINITE

fin fin fin-t fin-e fin-e fin-e

fin-e fin-e fin-e fin-e fin-e fin-e

[POS] [M SG] [POS] [F SG] [POS] [N SG] [POS] [M PL] [POS] [F PL] [POS] [N PL]

[POS] [M SG DEF] [POS] [F SG DEF] [POS] [N SG DEF] [POS] [M PL DEF] [POS] [F PL DEF] [POS] [N PL DEF]

PREDICATIVE fin fin fin-t fin-e fin-e fin-e

[POS] [M SG] [POS] [F SG] [POS] [N SG] [POS] [M PL] [POS] [F PL] [POS] [N PL]

In all these forms, the positive degree is represented by a zero marker. When it comes to the realisation of agreement, we see that although there are

DEFINITE DPS

47

many different feature combinations, there are only three possible realisations: /t/, /e/, or zero. The /t/ marks neuter singular, as stated in (2.31a). Accordingly, in (2.30) I have boldfaced the features neuter and singular where they determine the realisation of agreement. Another zero marker appears on adjectives in the feminine and masculine singular. But this marker need not be specified for gender. If the zero marker is only specified as singular, as suggested in (2.31b), the fact that the /t/ is specified for neuter gender will ensure that the /t/ is preferred over the zero marker in the case of neuter adjectives. The zero marker will then be chosen for other singulars, regardless of their gender. (2.31) a.

Norwegian: realisations of the adjectival agreement [N SG] ↔ /t/ b. [SG] ↔ Ø c. Agr ↔ /e/

Now the question is why adjectives in the definite singular get the weak inflection /e/. To explain this, we need to introduce the concept impoverishment, which plays a central part in Distributed Morphology (see in particular Halle 1997). Impoverishment means that one or more features in a given bundle may be deleted in the context of another feature. The consequence may be that the lexical item that would normally spell out the bundle in question is no longer available, and some other realisation must be sought. In the present case, all we need to assume is that in the adjectival agreement, SINGULAR features are deleted in the context DEFINITE, as indicated in (2.30). This makes the /t/ and the zero unavailable, and the /e/, which is an unspecified realisation of agreement—see (2.31c)—appears instead. For the same reason, the /e/ is also used to spell out agreement morphemes containing the plural feature. We see that on this approach, it is possible to claim that adjectives that appear with the unspecified /e/ can still be specified for at least gender and definiteness underlyingly. The weak inflection is just the default realisation of these feature clusters. Consequently, I will from now on gloss the weak inflection marker as DEF in definite contexts and as PL in indefinite plural contexts. 2.4.2 The internal syntax of adjectival phrases Concerning the internal syntax of Scandinavian adjectival phrases, examples like (2.32a) seem to suggest that the adjectival root combines first with a Degree head and then with a head where the features copied from the noun are spelled out, and that there is head movement of the adjectival root to the latter head, since the agreement suffix appears outside the degree suffix. However, periphrastic degree constructions, as exemplified in (2.32b), suggest the opposite order of inflectional heads, since here the degree element precedes the adjective but nevertheless the adjective has an agreement suffix.

48

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

(2.32) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN den ny-ast-e bok-a DEF.SG new-SUP-DEF book-DEF.F.SG ‘the newest book’ den

mest interessant-e bok-a most interesting-DEF book-DEF.F.SG ‘the most interesting book’ DEF.SG

One possibility might be to say that the weak inflectional suffix is a realisation of the α head that has the adjectival phrase in its Spec. This would explain why the weak suffix follows all other elements belonging to the adjectival phrase in (2.32a) and (2.32b), and also in the examples in (2.33), which Øystein Nilsen has pointed out to me. (2.33) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN den best-e DEF.SG best-DEF ‘the best solution’

løysing-a solution-DEF

den

best muleg-e løysing-a best possible-DEF solution-DEF ‘the best solution possible’ DEF.SG

In (2.33a) the agreement marker attaches to best “best”, as expected, but in (2.33b), where best is followed by the modifier muleg “possible”, the agreement marker attaches to that modifier, not to the adjective itself. This fact could be taken to suggest that the agreement marker is outside the extended adjectival phrase. However, we saw from example (1.16) in chapter 1 that the strong adjectival inflection is not a realisation of the α head, but a realisation of some element inside the adjectival projection. Since the strong adjectival inflection alternates with the weak inflection, it seems likely that the weak inflection too is a realisation of an element inside the adjectival projection. Another argument leading to the same conclusion goes as follows. In some cases, two adjectives preceding the same noun can co-occur without a coordinator. An example is stor “big” and svart “black” in (2.34a). Other pairs of adjectives require the presence of a coordinator, for example svart “black” and kvit “white” in (2.34b).

49

DEFINITE DPS

(2.34) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN den stor-e svart-e katt-a DEF.SG big-DEF black-DEF cat-DEF ‘the big black cat’ den

svart-e *(og) kvit-e katt-a black-DEF and white-DEF cat-DEF ‘the big black cat’ DEF.SG

My interpretation of these facts is that adjectives that belong to different semantic classes need no coordinator, since they are located in the Specs of different α heads. Adjectives belonging to the same semantic class, on the other hand, will have to share one single Spec position, and this is only possible if the two adjectives are combined into one constituent by means of coordination. Consequently, two or more colour adjectives, for example, can modify the same noun only if they are coordinated. But the interesting point in the present context is that each adjective in (2.33b) has a weak inflection suffix. If that suffix were the realisation of the α head that has the coordination in its Spec, only the last adjective should have one. But since both adjectives have weak inflection, I conclude that it represents an element that belongs to the adjectival phrase. The question is then which element this is, and how the surface orders shown in the above examples are derived. I will propose an answer that is based on ideas put forward in Zamparelli (2000). Zamparelli observes that if an adjective combines with a measure phrase in Italian, the adjective only agrees with the nominal that it modifies if it precedes the measure phrase. This is illustrated in (2.35). (2.35) a.

b.

ITALIAN (Zamparelli 2000:282) Ora Maria era lontan-a 2 chilometri dalla now Maria was far-F.SG 2 kilometres from.the ‘Now Maria was 2 kilometres from the house.’

casa. house

2 chilometri lontan-o dalla città c’ era una 2 kilometres far-M.SG from.the city there was a casa. houseF ‘2 kilometres from the city there was a house.’

Zamparelli concludes that there is an AP-internal Agr head above the DegP projection. On his view, in (2.35a) the adjectival head has moved to Agr, while the measure phrase sits in Spec-DegP. In (2.35b), on the other hand, the adjective is in its base position below Deg, which is why it shows up in the default nonagreeing form.

50

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

Zamparelli goes on to show that modifiers like così “so” and tanto “so (much)” can precede or follow adjectives. Although he is not explicit about the agreement patterns found with the different orders, it is clear that an adjective will show agreement regardless of its position relative to tanto: (2.36) a.

b.

ITALIAN (cf. Zamparelli 2000:289–290) Era pressappoco alt-a tanto. was approximately tall-F.SG so.much ‘She was about that tall .’ Era tanto alt-a quanto me. was as tall-F.SG as me ‘She was as tall as me.’

When tanto precedes an agreeing adjective, as in (2.36b), tanto must be located higher than Agr, since the adjective itself is in Agr when it shows agreement with the noun it modifies. Zamparelli concludes that there is a projection above Agr that can host modifiers like those mentioned. He chooses to call this higher projection (Adjectival) QP, to keep it from the lower DegP. The structure that Zamparelli arrives at for the extended AP is shown in (2.37), where MP stands for ‘Measure Phrase’. (2.37)

QP Q

AgrP Agr

DegP MP

Deg' Deg

AP A

(XP)

Now if Scandinavian adjectival phrases have the same structure as Zamparelli proposes for Italian, our Norwegian examples can be analysed as follows. Firstly, (2.32a) seems to suggest that the superlative marker is generated in Deg and the (definite) agreement marker in Agr, and that the adjective headmoves to Deg and Agr. This gives the following structure:

DEFINITE DPS

(2.38)

51

QP Q

AgrP Agr

Deg A ny

DegP Agr e

Deg ast

Deg

AP | A

It should be noted that I do not really subscribe to the idea that there exist syntactic heads that contain nothing but agreement features (see e.g. Julien 2002b). However, it seems clear that inside Scandinavian adjectival phrases, the agreement marker is positioned independently of other elements. Hence, I take the agreement features to reside in a head that is distinct from Q and Deg. I would expect this head to encode something more than just agreement features, but since I at present do not understand what its exact content is, I refer to the head as Agr. For the example in (2.32b), where the superlative is expressed by the modifier mest “most” preceding the agreeing adjective, we could propose that the adjective again has moved to Agr and that mest is a realisation of Q. I should mention here that both in (2.32a) and in (2.32b) it is possible to have modifiers in the initial position of the adjectival phrase. One such modifier is aller, meaning “of all”, which emphasises the superlative. Aller is shown in (2.39a) and (2.39b). (2.39) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN den aller ny-ast-e bok-a DEF.SG of.all new-SUP-DEF book-DEF.F.SG ‘the newest book of all, the very newest’ den

aller mest interessant-e bok-a of.all most interesting-DEF book-DEF.F.SG ‘the most interesting book of all’ DEF.SG

Since aller precedes mest in (2.39b), which in its turn precedes the agreeing adjective, it must be that either mest is a realisation of the Q head, while aller is in Spec-QP, or aller mest is a phrase sitting in Spec-QP. I will assume the

52

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

latter, which means that the adjectival phrase in (2.39b) has the syntactic structure sketched in (2.40).17 (2.40)

QP aller mest

Q'

Q

AgrP Agr

Deg A interessant

DegP Agr e

Deg

Deg

AP | A

However, examples like (2.33b) suggest that the analyses I have just given should be revised somewhat. If the adjective does indeed head-move to Agr, the agreement marker should never show up on any element other than the adjective itself. So how can it appear on a modifier of the adjective, as it does here? Note first that the adjectival root combines with Deg and forms the irregular superlative best “best” (the positive form is god “good”). This is an indication, although not conclusive evidence, that A has moved to Deg. But since muleg “possible” follows the superlative, I conclude that A does undergo head-movement to Deg, so that muleg, which I take to originate inside AP, stays behind. The fact that the whole expression best muleg nevertheless precedes the agreement marker suggests that the whole DegP moves to the Spec of Agr. The syntactic structure of the extended adjectival projection in (2.33b) is then as shown in (2.41). Moreover, the phrasal movement of DegP to SpecAgrP should probably also be included in the structures shown above.

17 Corver (1997) also argues for a split degree system in the functional domain of adjectives,

such that there is a QP projection and a DegP projection. However, for him DegP is higher and QP is lower. It seems to me that at least in Scandinavian, an element like aller is more like a quantifier than comparative and superlative markers. Hence, I follow Zamparelli and take QP to be higher than DegP.

53

DEFINITE DPS

(2.41)

QP Q

AgrP

DegP Deg A be

Agr' AP

Deg st

Agr e

DegP

muleg

There can also be phrases in front of the modifier aller. These phrases can modify the Deg or Q elements, as (2.42a) illustrates, but this position is also where the argument of a prenominal adjective will show up—see (2.42b). (2.42) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN den utan samanlikning aller mest interessant-e DEF.SG without comparison of.all most interesting-DEF bok-a book-DEF.F.SG ‘the without comparison most interesting book of all’ den

mot ven-e-ne sine aller to friend-PL-DEF 3REFL.POSS.PL of.all trofast-e mann-en faithful-DEF man-DEF ‘the man (who is) most faithful of all to his friends’ DEF.SG

mest most

Now if aller is in the Spec of QP, the constituents preceding aller must be a projection above QP. There are indications that while utan samanlikning “without comparison” in (2.42a) is base-generated in the position preceding aller, the expression mot venene sine “to his friends” in (2.42b) is in a derived position. In the corresponding predicative adjective phrases, utan samanlikning will still precede aller, but the argument PP mot venene sine will follow the adjective: (2.43) a.

NORWEGIAN Denne bok-a er utan samanlikning aller mest this book-DEF is without comparison of.all most interessant. interesting ‘This book is without comparison more interesting.’

54

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

b.

Han er aller mest trofast mot ven-e-ne sine. he is of.all most faithful to friend-PL-DEF 3REFL.POSS.PL ‘He is most faithful of all to his friends.’

That is, it appears that the argument of the adjective originates inside the minimal AP, and that in prenominal adjectival phrases, it moves to initial position, for reasons that are at present poorly understood. The PP utan samanlikning that precedes aller in (2.43) can also combine with adverbs, but then it does not necessarily form a constituent with the adverb in the surface order—see the examples in (2.44). (2.44) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN Ho forsto problem-et utan samanlikning (aller) she understood problem-DEF without comparison of.all fort-ast. quickly-SUP ‘Without comparison, she understood the problem most quickly (of all).’ Ho forsto utan samanlikning problem-et (aller) she understood without comparison problem-DEF of.all fort-ast. quickly-SUP ‘Without comparison, she understood the problem most quickly (of all).’

The question is then why utan samanlikning cannot move out of the adjectival phrase in (2.42a). However, I will not go into this here, since the main purpose of this section was to get some understanding of the projections that are related to the adjectival inflection. 2.5 Definite DPs in Icelandic In definite DPs in Icelandic we find a suffixed article but no prenominal determiner. As indicated in (2.45a), this holds whether the phrase contains prenominal modifiers or not. In other words, Icelandic does not allow ‘double definiteness’. From (2.45b) we see that if a numeral is included in a definite nominal phrase, the numeral will be the last element of the DP, even following a postnominal possessor. (2.45) a.

ICELANDIC ((b) from Vangsnes 1999:145) (gaml-a) hús-ið old-DEF.N.SG house-DEF.N.SG.NOM ‘the (old) house’

55

DEFINITE DPS

b.

[fræg-u bæk-ur-nar mínar ] famous-DEF.PL book-F.PL.NOM-DEF.F.PL.NOM my.F.PL.NOM þrjár three ‘my three famous books’

On my interpretation, the latter pattern indicates that αP has moved to SpecDP, across the numeral. Movement of αP to Spec-DP is also the proposal put forth in Vangsnes (1999) for constructions like (2.45b). However, unlike Vangsnes I will extend this analysis to nominal phrases without numerals, in which case the movement is not directly observable. Thus, I will claim that αP has moved to Spec-DP also in (2.45a). As demonstrated in (2.46), movement of αP to Spec-DP is not possible in indefinite plural nominal phrases. (2.46) a.

ICELANDIC (Vangsnes 1999:145) þrjár fræg-ar bæk-ur three.F.NOM famous-IDF.F.PL.NOM book-F.PL.NOM ‘three famous books’

b. * fræg-ar famous-F.PL.NOM

bæk-ur book-IDF.F.PL.NOM

þrjár three.F.NOM

This fact suggests that movement of αP (or of nP, if there is no adjective in the construction) to Spec-DP in Icelandic serves to identify a definite D, much like movement of nP to Spec-DP in the ‘double definiteness’ varieties. That is, although referentiality as such does not depend on a visible D in Icelandic (see chapter 1, section 1.4), the referential properties of a definite DP depend on D being made visible. Also note that in definite DPs, the definite n is spelled out, so that inside the fronted αP (or nP) there is a suffixed definite article. As a result, the definiteness feature of D gets an overt realisation in the DP projection even if D itself is not spelled out. It is also interesting to note that when the nominal head is phonologically empty, a prenominal determiner shows up, as in (2.47a). If we compare (2.47a) to (2.47b), where the nominal head is spelled out, we see that in the latter case, a phonologically realised noun ends up in the DP projection when the αP græna kjólinn moves to Spec-DP. As a consequence, the DP projection has a visible nominal category feature. This is apparently crucial for a definite DP. When the nominal head, or more precisely the complex n head, is not spelled out, as in (2.47a), there will be no visible nominal feature in the fronted constituent. On my view, this is why αP is not attracted to Spec-DP in (2.47a), but

56

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

instead, an element with nominal features is inserted in D, so that the DP can be referential. (2.47) a.

ICELANDIC Ég keypti *(þann) græn-a. I bought DEF.M.SG.ACC green-DEF.M.SG.ACC ‘I bought the green one.’

b.

Ég keypti græn-a I bought green-DEF.M.SG.ACC ‘I bought the green dress.’

c.

Ég keypti þá tvo I bought DEF.M.PL.ACC two.M.ACC ‘I bought the two green ones.’

d. * Ég I

kjól-inn. dress-DEF. M.SG.ACC

græn-u. green-DEF.PL

keypti græn-u tvo. bought green-DEF.PL two.M.ACC

The examples in (2.47c) and (2.47d) show even more clearly that αP does not (normally) move to Spec-DP when the complex n head is not spelled out. Hence, it appears that when αP moves to Spec-DP, the target of D is nevertheless the complex n head with its overt nominal and definiteness features. The movement of αP must then be an instance of pied-piping.18 In addition, overt case marking seems to play a role. Notably, numerals are not inflected in Icelandic, except for those from 1 to 4. Hence, numerals as a class cannot serve to specify the reference of the definite DP—they are not overtly definite. Moving the numeral to Spec-DP is therefore not an option. It is more surprising that numerals do not block movement of αP/nP to Spec-DP in Icelandic, while they do block movement of nP to Spec-DP in other Scandinavian languages. Surely, one would assume that numerals enter into the same agreement relations in Icelandic as in other languages. The explanation may lie in the fact that most numerals are not overtly case-marked either. It is possible that in Icelandic, the overt marking is more relevant than the underlying feature 18 Halldór Sigurðsson (p.c.) informs me that at least for him, the order in (i) is also possible.

(i)

Ég keypti þá græn-u I bought DEF.M.PL.ACC green-DEF.PL ‘I bought the two green ones.’

tvo. two.M.ACC

Here the adjective has probably moved across the numeral for scope reasons (cf. (1.22)), so that it is not in Spec-DP.

57

DEFINITE DPS

content, and that this is why D ignores the numerals and targets αP instead, which is the highest projection below D that regularly has overt morphological case distinctions. Finally, it needs to be mentioned that in literary Icelandic, an alternative to αP movement is to insert a prenominal determiner and leave αP in situ. As shown in (2.48), it is then ungrammatical to have a suffixed article on the noun. It should be noted, though, that in addition to having a formal or literary flavour, a nominal phrase with a prenominal determiner is not necessarily referential. It will typically be used predicatively, as in (2.49) (Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson, p. c.). (2.48) a.

b.

(2.49)

LITERARY ICELANDIC ((b) from Vangsnes 1999:145) hið gaml-a hús(*-ið) DEF.N.SG.NOM old-DEF.N.SG house.NOM-DEF.N.SG.NOM ‘the old house’ hinar þrjár fræg-u DEF.F.PL.NOM three famous-DEF.PL mínar my.F.PL.NOM ‘my three famous books’ LITERARY ICELANDIC Þorsteinn, hinn Þorsteinn DEF.M.SG.NOM ‘Þorsteinn, the good man’

bæk-ur(*-nar) book-F.PL.NOM-DEF

góð-i good-DEF.M.SG.NOM

maður man.SG.NOM

Also note that in addition to the difference in referentiality, the prenominal determiner that is used in the literary style is formally different from the preposed determiner that shows up with adjectives in the colloquial register. The deeper significance of these differences will have to be investigated in more detail. As for the absence of the suffixed definite article in the examples above, it is somewhat unexpected given that the adjectives have weak inflection, which suggests that they agree with an n head with a DEFINITE feature. But even though it is definite, n itself is not spelled out. It appears that in Icelandic, n and D cannot both be spelled out. Accordingly, there can be only one overt realisation of the definiteness feature shared by D and n. This seems to indicate that only one instance of this feature can be interpreted (setting aside the definiteness marking on adjectives, which represents definiteness only indirectly). In a sense, then, visible definiteness features are stronger in Icelandic than in the ‘double definiteness’ varieties of Scandinavian.

58

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

2.6 Definite DPs in Northern Swedish I will now turn to Northern Swedish, a variety of Scandinavian with nominal phrases that are different from any of the constructions we have seen in the previous sections. In the following, I deal first with the word order in Northern Swedish DPs and then with the so-called ‘adjective incorporation’ found in this variety. 2.6.1 Word order in Northern Swedish DPs In the dialects that I refer to here as Northern Swedish, there is no ‘double definiteness’. That is, there is a preposed determiner in indefinite singular DPs, as in (2.50a), no determiner or article in indefinite plural DPs, as in (2.50b), and a suffixed article in definite DPs, as in (2.50c) and (2.50d). (2.50) a.

c.

NORTHERN SWEDISH (cf. Delsing 1993, Sandström & Holmberg 1994, Vangsnes 1999) en gammal svart katt b. graann hest-a an old black cat fine.PL horse-PL ‘an old black cat’ ‘fine horses’ gamm-svart-katt-a old-black-cat-DEF.SG ‘the old black cat’

d.

grann-hest-a fine-horse-DEF.PL ‘the fine horses’

The analysis of indefinite DPs is straightforward: in the singular, D is spelled out, but in the plural, the DP projection may be void of phonological material, since the reference of the DP does not necessarily depend on D. Concerning definite DPs in Northern Swedish, it should be noted that if they contain a numeral, that numeral is obligatorily preceded by a demonstrative, as illustrated in (2.51a). Another relevant fact is that in a definite nominal phrase that contains a demonstrative but no numeral, the demonstrative follows the noun, as shown in (2.51b). (2.51) a.

b.

NORTHERN SWEDISH (Vangsnes 1999:138) dem-derna trei grann-hest-a they-there three fine-horse-DEF.PL ‘the three fine horses’ grann-hest-n fine-horse-DEF.SG ‘that fine horse’

derna there

On my analysis, in the absence of numerals αP moves to Spec-DP in definite Northern Swedish DPs, thereby supplying the DP projection with phonologi-

DEFINITE DPS

59

cally overt material. Consequently, the presence of adjectives does not require D to be spelled out. Numerals do however prevent αP from moving, and they thereby force D to have its own phonological realisation (the question of why the demonstrative shows up will be discussed below). Northern Swedish thus differs from Icelandic, where αP-raising may well cross a numeral, as we have seen. Concerning Icelandic, I proposed that the reason why αP may raise across numerals is that D cares about visible morphology and therefore ignores the numerals since numerals as a class have no overt morphological marking. But while Icelandic adjectives have visible inflection, in Northern Swedish definite DPs there is no visible morphology neither on adjectives nor on numerals (see below). So why do numerals block αP-raising in this variety? A possible explanation is that D wants to attract a nominal category in Northern Swedish, and that the attracted constituent should also provide a phonological realisation of D’s definiteness feature. Numerals are nominal but not overtly definite. Because of this, they will be the target of D when they are present, but they cannot be attracted to Spec-DP due to their lack of definiteness marking. The result is a defective intervention effect. In the absence of numerals, the complex n head will be D’s target, but since adjectives are completely irrelevant to D, the αP can be pied-piped for free. The ordering contrast between (2.51a), where the demonstrative is in initial position, and (2.51b), where it is in final position, can be seen as a consequence of the status of the demonstrative. In Northern Swedish, the distal demonstrative derna is identical to the adverb meaning “there”, and the proximal demonstrative herna is identical to the adverb meaning “here” (Vangsnes 1999). Hence, unlike what we find in other Scandinavian varieties, the Northern Swedish demonstratives do not have nominal features, and they cannot be used independently as referential DPs—they would only be interpreted as location adverbs. Now if the highest projection of a referential nominal phrase must have a nominal category feature, as I am assuming, it follows that a definite nominal phrase in Northern Swedish cannot be introduced by a demonstrative alone. Hence, the demonstrative must be accompanied by an element with a nominal category feature. It is interesting in this connection that unlike the demonstrative in (2.51b), the demonstrative in (2.51a) consists of two elements—the pronominal element dem “they” and the distal demonstrative derna “there”. Strikingly, the pronominal part of the complex demonstrative corresponds in form to the elements that are used as prenominal determiners in other Scandinavian varieties. I have claimed that these elements are located in D and that they have nominal features. My proposal is that the pronominal part of a complex demonstrative in Northern Swedish is also a D element, which has incorporated into Dem. In other words, in the absence of movement of αP to Spec-DP, D is spelled out as a prenominal determiner even in Northern Swedish.

60

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

As for the remaining part of the complex demonstrative, I take it to be the head of a projection DemP which is above DP. But since demonstratives in Northern Swedish are not nominal, while the prenominal determiner is, D will move to Dem. After movement of D to Dem, the newly formed complex Dem head has nominal features, as required. On this analysis, the syntactic structure of (2.51a) is as shown in (2.52). (2.52)

DemP Dem D dem

DP

Dem derna

D

CardP WQP trei

Card' αP

Card

grannhesta For Northern Swedish definite DPs not containing a numeral, I have suggested that there is movement of αP to Spec-DP. What we see in (2.51b) is then the result of αP having moved on to Spec-DemP, so that αP is the constituent that supplies DemP with nominal features, by virtue of containing the noun itself. On this analysis the structure of (2.51b) is as shown here: (2.53)

DemP αP grannhestn

Dem' Dem derna

DP αP

D' D

αP

The question that now remains is why the prenominal determiner, generated in D, cannot appear without a demonstrative. Since the determiner has nominal features we would expect it to be able to do without the demonstrative, even if the demonstrative cannot do without the determiner. Note, however, that the presence of a demonstrative does not necessarily make a big difference to a definite DP. If the demonstrative can be interpreted as referring to an entity that is mentioned earlier in the discourse, i.e. the kind of reading that is tradi-

DEFINITE DPS

61

tionally called an anaphoric reading as opposed to a deictic reading, the meaning of the demonstrative comes very close to the semantic content of definiteness. The fact that the demonstrative is required to appear whenever there is a prenominal definite determiner is nevertheless in need of further investigation.19 As we now would expect, if a numeral is added to an indefinite DP in Northern Swedish, the numeral will precede the adjective, and the DP projection remains empty—see (2.54). (2.54)

NORTHERN SWEDISH (Vangsnes 1999:136) trei graann hest-a three fine horse-PL ‘three fine horses’

In this respect, Northern Swedish is no different from other Scandinavian varieties. 2.6.2 ‘Adjective incorporation’ Another striking feature of Northern Swedish definite DPs, which can be seen in the examples I have already given, is that if they contain one or more adjectives, the adjectives are included in a word with the noun. This phenomenon is commonly referred to as adjective incorporation, and it is analysed by Sandström & Holmberg (1994) and Vangsnes (1999) as syntactic incorporation of the adjective into the nominal head. The incorporation is in both theories seen as a strategy that makes movement of N to D possible. It is assumed that while movement of N to D would be blocked by an adjective that is not incorporated, movement to D of the complex word consisting of the adjective(s) and the noun is allowed.

19 An observation from a Norwegian dialect could be relevant in this connection. I have no-

ticed that older speakers from the Solør district, which borders on Sweden, appear to make excessive use of demonstratives in their speech. Thus, one can hear expressions like (i) in situations where only one cake and one bowl of cream are present. (i)

Vil du ha denna krem-en will you have this cream-DEF ‘Will you put the cream on the cake?’

på denna kak-a? on this cake-DEF

As I have suggested in the English translations, the demonstratives have little or no deictic force in this case. Other speakers of Norwegian would simply say kremen “the cream” and kaka “the cake” in the same situation. Thus, the demonstratives appear to be part of the system of definiteness marking for the speakers who say (i). A similar phenomenon is found in the Swedish dialects of Eastern Nyland in Finland (Camilla Wide p.c.) and possibly also in Northern Swedish.

62

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

These analyses would explain why there is no incorporation in indefinite nominal phrases, where D is spelled out as a prenominal determiner and there is no movement of N to D. But what they do not explain is the fact that there is ‘incorporation’ even when the noun does not move to D. If a definite nominal phrase contains a numeral, the noun stays below the numeral, while there is a demonstrative in front of the numeral. Nevertheless, if an adjective is present, it forms a word with the noun, as shown in (2.51a). It is also worth noting that the adjectives and the noun appear in the order that has been argued to be the universal base-generated order (Cinque 1994). This suggests that there is no syntactic incorporation of adjectives in Northern Swedish. Instead, what we see as a complex word is made up of adjectives in their base positions and a noun in n. The so-called incorporation of adjectives is then merely a matter of prosody. It is well known that prosodic words do not necessarily correspond to syntactic constituents (see e.g. Selkirk & Shen 1990, Julien 2002b). Hence, there is nothing to exclude the possibility that Northern Swedish adjectives form a prosodic word with the noun without forming a syntactic constituent with it, and that they surface in the same syntactic position relative to the noun as adjectives in other varieties of Scandinavian. Some data given in Vangsnes (1999) from the Swedish dialect area in Österbotten in Finland are of particular interest in this connection. In Österbotten Swedish, adjective incorporation is common in definite nominal phrases even though there is also a prenominal determiner. This is seen in (2.55a), which is from the dialect of Närpes. The co-occurrence of a prenominal determiner with adjective incorporation is another indication that adjective incorporation is not directly related to movement of the noun to the DP projection. (2.55) a.

b.

NÄRPES SWEDISH (Vangsnes 1999:141) hede stor-hús-e DEF.N.SG big-house-DEF ‘the big house’ hede stór-t DEF.N.SG big-N.SG ‘the big house’

hús-e house-DEF

Moreover, if we compare (2.55a) and (2.55b), we see that adjective incorporation goes with lack of adjectival inflection, while overt inflection on the adjective appears to block adjective incorporation. But strikingly, the inflection that the adjective carries in (2.55b) is of the form that most dialects of Scandinavian only make use of in indefinite nominal phrases. What we would expect to see in a definite nominal phrase like (2.55b) is the weak inflection. Apparently, the weak inflection on adjectives has been lost in the Närpes dialect. This is also true for those dialects of Northern Swedish where definite adjectives are

DEFINITE DPS

63

obligatorily incorporated (Vangsnes 1999). In light of the Närpes data, I would propose that the so-called adjective incorporation in Northern Swedish is a phonological process, which is facilitated by the lack of morphological marking of definite adjectives. Presumably, absence of inflection makes the adjective stand out as phonologically incomplete. Including the adjective in a prosodic word with the noun is then a way to compensate for the perceived incompleteness.20 It should also be recalled that in many Northern Swedish definite nominal phrases, the adjective is the initial element in the DP. On the other hand, the adjective will normally be followed by the noun. If the adjective does not constitute a prosodic word on its own, the noun will often be the only element that the adjective can possibly form a prosodic word with. On this view, it is a bit problematic that prenominal adjectives in definite nominal phrases cannot be modified—see (2.56). (2.56) NORTHERN SWEDISH a. * alldeles-röd-kjol-en completely-red-skirt-DEF.SG

b. * alldeles röd-kjol-en completely red-skirt-DEF.SG

But as Görel Sandström points out to me, for pragmatic reasons there is very rarely any need to modify them anyway. Normally, the combination of one or more adjectives with the noun serves to pick out a referent. One might guess that because the adjectives in the definite so often appear without modifiers, their inclusion in the nominal prosodic word has been made obligatory by convention. When the noun is missing, adjectives in Northern Swedish can appear with a suffixed definite marker, as in (2.57) (cf. Delsing 1993). In Standard Swedish, by contrast, one would have a preposed determiner instead, as illustrated in (2.58). (2.57)

NORTHERN SWEDISH stor-en big-DEF.M.SG ‘the big one’

20 Vangsnes (1999) also connects adjective incorporation in Northern Swedish to the loss of

inflection on definite adjectives, although on his account, the nature of the incorporation goes beyond phonology.

64

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

(2.58)

SWEDISH den stor-a DEF.CG.SG big-DEF ‘the big one’

Given my claim that the αP in Northern Swedish moves to Spec-DP, it is possible that the suffix on the adjective in (2.57) is a realisation of D. The fact that the definite suffix on the adjective triggers Accent 2 in Northern Swedish while the definite suffix on the noun does not (Holmberg & Sandström 1996b) can then be seen as the consequence of the structural difference: the suffixed adjective consists of a constituent in Spec-DP plus the spelled-out D, while the suffixed noun is a complex n head.21

21 Adjectives with suffixed definiteness markers are also found in Norwegian, most promi-

nently in the dialects of Trøndelag (around Trondheim). In fact, numerals as well as adjectives can have a definite suffix in this dialect area, when the noun is elided. But strikingly, suffixed adjectives often and suffixed numerals always appear with a preposed determiner—see (ia) and (ib). This must mean that the suffix represents n while the preposed determiner represents D. Since adjectives and numerals are situated in projections above nP, the suffixation of the definiteness marker must be phonological only. (i)a.

c.

(den) støst-en DEF.SG biggest-DEF.M.SG ‘the biggest one’

b. dæm to-an those two-DEF.PL ‘those two’

liss-katt-a little-cat-DEF.F.SG ‘the little cat’

In the same dialect area, one also finds what looks like adjective incorporation. An example is given in (ic). However, these constructions are arguably name-like in the dialects in question, and a possible analysis is therefore that D is empty here, and that the suffixed definiteness marker is in n, forming a complex head with the noun, as usual. That is, it does not seem necessary to postulate movement of αP to Spec-DP for any Norwegian dialects. Finally, in all varieties of Norwegian (and also in Swedish) adjectives with suffixed definiteness markers are used as names of animals, as in (iia), and as (often derogatory) nicknames, as in (iib) and (iic). (ii)a. Svart-en black-DEF.M.SG ‘Blackie (e.g. of a horse)’

b. Tjukk-en fat-DEF.M.SG ‘Fatty (of a male)’

c. Søt-a cute-DEF .F.SG ‘Cute (of a female)’ These words also have the tone pattern of nouns, which contrasts with the tone pattern of definite adjectives. I will however not try to give a deeper analysis here.

DEFINITE DPS

65

2.7 Danish, including West Jutlandic Now only two of the more well-known varieties of Scandinavian have not been addressed. The varieties I have in mind are (Standard) Danish and the Danish dialects of the western and southern parts of Jutland, which differ from Standard Danish in several ways and are often referred to collectively as West Jutlandic. In this section, I will deal with both, although (Standard) Danish will get more attention than West Jutlandic. Danish nominal phrases look exactly parallel to their counterparts in Norwegian, Swedish and Faroese as long as no prenominal modifier is involved. That is, there is a prenominal determiner in the indefinite singular, a suffixed article in the definite singular and plural, and no determiner or article in the indefinite plural. This is shown in (2.59). (2.59) a.

c.

DANISH en bil a.CG car ‘a car’ bil-er car-PL ‘cars’

b.

bil-en car-DEF.CG ‘the car’

d.

bil-er-ne car-PL-DEF ‘the cars’

But if an adjective or a numeral precedes the noun, definite nominal phrases as well as indefinite ones have only a prenominal determiner and no suffixed article. This is illustrated in (2.60). (2.60) a.

b.

DANISH et stor-t IDF.N.SG big-N.SG ‘a big house’ det

stor-e DEF.N.SG big-DEF ‘the big house’

hus house

hus(*-et) house(-DEF.N.SG)

In West Jutlandic, we find only prenominal determiners and no suffixed articles. As (2.61) and (2.62) show, all markers of definiteness or indefiniteness are prenominal, whether or not there are adjectives in front of the noun.22 22 In the western part of Jutland, nouns lack lexical gender, but a gender-like distinction is

made between countable and uncountable nouns. The definite and indefinite markers shown here would be used with countable nouns, while the definite form of uncountable nouns is marked with a preposed det. See e.g. Ringgaard (1971).

66

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

(2.61) a.

c.

(2.62) a.

WEST JUTLANDIC DANISH en bil b. a car ‘a car’

æ bil the car ‘the car’

bil-er car-PL ‘cars’

æ bil-er the car-PL ‘the cars’

d.

WEST JUTLANDIC DANISH (cf. Delsing 1993) en gamel bil b. æ gamel an old car the old

bil car

Hence, all markers of definiteness or indefiniteness in this variety must be phonological realisations of D. What I will propose is that Standard Danish is more similar to West Jutlandic that it appears to be at first sight. More specifically, just like in West Jutlandic, n is never spelled out in any variety of Danish. The construction shown in (2.63) is illuminating in this respect. (2.63)

DANISH Ved du ikke det, stor-e pige! know.PRES you not that big-DEF girl ‘Don’t you know that you big girl!’

In this construction, the nominal phrase store pige “big girl” is a vocative. In the ‘double definiteness’ varieties, it is possible to have a suffixed definite article on the noun in vocatives (see fn. 11). This is however not possible in (2.63), despite the fact that the vocative phrase is visibly definite, as the adjective store has weak inflection. Consequently, there must be a definite n head in this phrase, although it is not spelled out. However, in Danish outside of the West Jutlandic area the noun has a suffixed article in nominal phrases that contain no adjectives or numerals. This was seen in (2.59b) and (2.59d). On my proposal, the suffixed definite article in Danish is a realisation of D. The suffixing is due to movement of nP to Spec-DP, an operation that is absent from West Jutlandic. After movement of nP, the element in D forms a word with an element in its Spec (see Julien 2002b on the role of the Spec-head configuration in word formation). On this analysis, an inflected Danish noun like bil-er-ne “cars-PL-DEF” has the syntactic structure outlined in (2.64).

67

DEFINITE DPS

(2.64)

DP nP n Num N bil

Num er

D' NumP

n

Num

D ne

nP

NP | N

Since D is spelled out anyway, movement of nP to Spec-DP is not required to give the DP projection a phonological realisation. Instead, it appears that Danish prefers to have the noun itself in the DP projection. But just as in Mainland Scandinavian and Faroese, prenominal modifiers block movement of nP to Spec-DP in Standard Danish. Consequently, when prenominal modifiers are present, we get only a preposed determiner, as in (2.60b). Furthermore, we see from (2.64) that the word formation I am proposing is only possible if NumP is empty at Spell-Out. Given that I have said earlier that the arguments of the noun are generated inside NP and hence also inside NumP, it is now necessary to show that the arguments are not inside NumP when the nP moves to Spec-DP in Danish. I will first deal with possessors and then with complements of the noun. In Standard Danish, possessors precede adjectives and weak quantifiers but follow demonstratives: (2.65)

DANISH disse {Dorte-s/mine} mange gaml-e bøg-er om these Dorte-POSS/my.PL many old-PL/DEF book-PL about lingvistik linguistics ‘these many old books of Dorte’s/of mine about linguistics’

I take this as an indication that the possessor moves to Spec-DP, possibly via a PossP projection immediately below DP, as suggested by Delsing (1998) and many others. The possessor then satisfies the requirements of D, since it is nominal and definite. (A more detailed analysis of prenominal possessors is presented in chapter 6.) It now seems to be a problem for my analysis of Danish DPs that a Danish noun can have a suffixed article even if it is followed by an argument PP. Some examples of this are given in (2.66).

68

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

(2.66) a.

DANISH fornemmels-en for sne feeling-DEF for snow ‘the feeling for snow’

b.

tradition-en med jul-e-gave-r tradition-DEF with Christmas-Ø-present-PL ‘the tradition of Christmas presents’

c.

undervisning-en af elev-er-ne teaching-DEF of pupil-PL-DEF ‘the teaching of the pupils’

If the suffixed article in Danish is a D which has become suffixed to the noun as a result of nP having moved to Spec-DP, as I have suggested above, it cannot be the case that the PPs in (2.66) surface in the complement position of N, where they probably are generated. Rather, they must have moved out of nP altogether. Outside of Scandinavian, it is not too hard to find cases where a noun is separated from its PP complement in the surface structure. Consider e.g. Irish, where DPs move to the front of demonstratives, so that demonstratives appear in final position. Strikingly, a PP complement of the noun will nevertheless follow the demonstrative, as shown in the following examples: (2.67) a.

b.

IRISH (Donall O Baoill p.c.) an ionsaí sin ar na the attack that on the ‘that attack on the people’ an réiteach seo ar an the solution this on the ‘this solution of the problem’

daoine people

deacracht problem

This means that in Irish there must be a way for the complement of the noun to avoid being fronted with the noun. Evidently, complements of the noun need not be spelled out inside the minimal NP. They must be able to move to a very high position and thereby be left behind when the DP moves to Spec-DemP. In this connection, it is interesting to note that even in Norwegian, where the normal position for a PP complement of the noun is after the noun, as in (2.68a), it is possible for such PPs to appear in front of the numeral, as in (2.68b). Although the latter order is clearly marked (it sounds somewhat stilted, and it is more acceptable in Bokmål Norwegian than in Nynorsk Norwegian, where a less bookish style is preferred), it is definitely better than the

69

DEFINITE DPS

order in (2.68c), for example, where the PP is located between the numeral and the adjective, and also much better than the one in (2.68d), where the PP follows the adjective but precedes the noun. (2.68) a.

NORWEGIAN (BOKMÅL) de to ny-e beskrivelse-ne av DEF.PL two new-DEF description-DEF.PL of ‘the two new descriptions of Copenhagen’

b. ? de

av København to ny-e of Copenhagen two new-DEF ‘the two new descriptions of Copenhagen’ DEF.PL

c. * de DEF.PL

d. * de DEF.PL

to av two of

København ny-e Copenhagen new-DEF

to ny-e two new-DEF

av of

København Copenhagen

beskrivelse-ne description-DEF.PL

beskrivelse-ne description-DEF.PL

København beskrivelse-ne Copenhagen description-DEF.PL

Thus, there appears to be a landing site for moved constituents below D but above CardP. This could be the same position that we saw a superlative adjective move to in (2.22). I will therefore hypothesise that PP complements of nouns can move to this position also in Danish, and that this is how they avoid being fronted with an nP that moves to Spec-DP. (But in Irish, PPs must move even higher, to a position above D.)23 2.8 Nouns that resist nominal inflection Hankamer & Mikkelsen (2002, 2003) discuss a class of Scandinavian nouns that are exceptional in their morphological and syntactic behaviour. The class 23 Icelandic appears to have a position immediately below CardP that nP-internal constituents

can move to, so that they are not fronted along with αP. The examples in (i), taken from Vangsnes (2001b), show this. (i)a.

b.

bæk-ur-nar fjórar hans Noam book-PL-DEF four his Noam ‘Noam’s four books’ frægu bæk-ur-nar fjórar um setningafræði famous book-PL-DEF four about syntax ‘the four famous books about syntax’

If the elements that precede the numeral in these examples are contained in the fronted nP, the possessor hans Noam in (ia) and the PP complement um setningafræði in (ib), which both presumably originate inside the nP, must have moved out of nP before nP is fronted,

70

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

in question is deverbal nouns ending in –ande or –ende, a suffix that otherwise marks the present participle. The Norwegian examples in (2.67) illustrate the distribution of this suffix. In (2.69a) the word form reisande has the function of an adjective, and its meaning is best rendered as “travelling”. In (2.69b), on the other hand, reisande is a noun, and its meaning is best rendered as “traveller”. (2.69) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN ein reis-ande musikant IDF.M.SG travel-PRES.PTC musicianM ‘a travelling musician’ ein IDF.M.SG

reis-ande travel-PRES.PTC

‘a traveller’ Hankamer & Mikkelsen (2002) argue convincingly that words in –ande/–ende can be nouns. The most notable fact is that constructions like (2.69b) can occur discourse initially. For example, (2.70a) has the same discourse properties as (2.70b), and it is different from (2.70c), which is an example of nominal ellipsis and requires the semantic content of the head noun to be recoverable from the context. (2.70) a.

b.

DANISH (Hankamer & Mikkelsen 2002:149) En studer-ende kom gå-ende ned IDF study-PRES.PTC came walk-PRES.PTC down gang-en. hallway-DEF ‘A student came walking down the hallway.’ En

pige kom gå-ende ned girl came walk-PRES.PTC down ‘A girl came walking down the hallway.’ IDF

ad along

ad along

gang-en. hallway-DEF

c. # En

høj kom gå-ende ned ad gang-en. tall came walk-PRES.PTC down along hallway-DEF Intended meaning: ‘A tall person came walking down the hallway.’ IDF

Another striking fact, pointed out to me by Peter Svenonius, is that a nationality adjective will normally follow reisande in (2.71a) but precede it in (2.71b) (the latter is true of any adjective). This is consistent with reisande being an adjective in (2.71a) but a noun in (2.71b). The conclusion that reisande and studerende can really be nouns seems to be inevitable.

DEFINITE DPS

(2.71) a.

b.

71

NORWEGIAN ein reis-ande fransk musikant IDF.M.SG travel-PRES.PTC French musicianM ‘a travelling French musician’ ein

fransk reis-ande French travel-PRES.PTC ‘a French traveller’ IDF.M.SG

However, these nouns and other nouns in –ende/–ande that are either of the common gender (in Danish and Swedish) or masculine (in Norwegian) do not behave as expected when they appear in definite nominal phrases. Unlike other nouns in Scandinavian, they never take a suffixed definiteness marker. Instead, when they are definite they only appear with a preposed definiteness marker, regardless of whether prenominal modifiers are present or not: (2.72) a.

c.

NORWEGIAN den reis-ande DEF.SG travel-PRES.PTC ‘the traveller’

b. * reis-ande-n travel-PRES.PTC-DEF. M.SG ‘the traveller’

den

slitn-e reis-ande(*-n) tired-DEF travel-PRES.PTC(-DEF.M.SG) ‘the tired traveller’ DEF.SG

(2.73) a.

c.

DANISH den studer-ende DEF.SG study-PRES.PTC ‘the student‘ den

fattig-e poor-DEF ‘the poor student’ DEF.SG

b. * studer-ende-n study-PRES.PTC-DEF.CG.SG ‘the student’

studer-ende travel-PRES.PTC

To explain the unexpected behaviour of masculine/common gender nouns in –ande/ –ende, Hankamer & Mikkelsen (2002, 2003) stipulate a lexical morphological rule that applies specifically to these nouns, to the effect that unlike other nouns in Scandinavian, they cannot take a suffixed definiteness marker and appear in the DP projection. However, a point that Hankamer & Mikkelsen (2002, 2003) do not mention is that masculine or common gender nouns in – ende/–ande do not combine with plural markers either. That is, they do not take nominal inflectional suffixes at all:

72

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

(2.74)

NORWEGIAN mange reis-ande(*-r) many travel-PRES.PTC(-PL) ‘many travellers’

(2.75)

DANISH mange studer-ende(*-r) many study-PRES.PTC(-PL) ‘many students’

The explanation I would like to suggest is that these nouns are derived from participles by means of a phonologically zero nominal head. As indicated in (2.76), this nominal head is characterised by its gender, which is masculine in Norwegian and common gender in Danish and Swedish, and by its inherent meaning, which includes the feature HUMAN. (2.76)

N[M, HUMAN] Ptc reisande

N Ø[M, HUMAN]

The only assumption we need in addition is that the phonologically empty N head, after it has head-moved to Num and n, prevents Num and n from being phonologically realised. That is, nouns in –ande/–ende will project an nP as shown in (2.77). The fact that definite nouns in –ande/–ende always combine with a preposed determiner can now be explained as follows. Since it does not contain any visible nominal features, an nP built over a noun of this type cannot move to Spec-DP to identify D. The consequence is that nP stays in place and D must have its own phonological realisation. (2.77)

nP n Num N Ptc

Num Ø N Ø

NumP n Ø

Num

NP | N

DEFINITE DPS

73

The mechanism at work here is easier to grasp if we assume that nP is a strong phase in the sense of Chomsky (1999) (a phase in the terms of Chomsky 2001). I made a suggestion in this direction already in the discussion of (2.27), but now it is time to be explicit about it. I will also assume, with Svenonius (2000, 2001) (and in fact also with Chomsky 2001) that a (strong) phase goes to Spell-Out as soon as it is complete, and not at the next (strong) phase, as Chomsky (1999) suggests. Hence, as soon as nP is completed it is spelled out. It follows that at the point when D is merged, the complex n head will already have its phonological realisation, and in the case of a noun in –ande/– ende, the fact that N has no phonological realisation will be evident. Because of this, D will not attract an nP containing a noun in –ande/–ende. My analysis of nouns in –ende/–ande carries directly over to another type of Scandinavian nouns that resist nominal inflection, namely, nouns whose morphological form is that of a past participle. An example from Norwegian is given below. (Other nouns of this type are føresett “guardian (by law)”, tilsett “employee”, mistenkt “suspect” and bekjent “acquaintance”.) (2.78) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN ein inn-sett IDF.M.SG in-put.PAST.PTC ‘an inmate’ den

inn-sett-e in-put.PAST.PTC-DEF ‘the inmate’ DEF.SG

As (2.78b) shows, innsett “inmate” behaves syntactically in the same way as nouns in –ende/–ande, in that it always combines with a preposed determiner when it is definite.24 In the approach of Hankamer & Mikkelsen (2002, 2003) this fact could be captured by extending the rule that prevents certain nouns from appearing in the DP projection. However, since Hankamer & Mikkelsen assume that the suffix –ende/–ande is inserted under N, their analysis of nouns in –ende/–ande, when applied to nouns like innsett, will have problems explaining the fact that innsett takes the definiteness marker that is otherwise seen on adjectives, as (2.78b) shows.

24 In Icelandic, nouns of this type can appear with either of the two preposed determiners: the

literary hinn or the colloquial sá (Halldór Sigurðsson, p.c.). Here is an example: (i)

{hinn/sá} DEF.M.SG /DEF.M.SG ‘the suspect’

grún-aði suspect-PAST.PTC

74

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

On my analysis, innsett is another instance of (2.76). The syntactic behaviour of innsett is then due to the presence of the phonologically empty nominal head, just as I have argued for nouns like reisande. The adjectival inflection that we see in (2.78b) must be due to the participle having combined first with a Agr node, which picks up the value of the definiteness feature in n. Note that this could also be true of nouns built on present participles, but since a present participle never shows any overt reflex of definiteness, for phonological reasons (it already ends in an –e), we never see this.25 The nouns that I have just discussed should be compared to neuter nouns in –ende, which are also quite numerous in Scandinavian (as Hankamer & Mikkelsen 2002, 2003 observe). They are dispreferred in Nynorsk Norwegian, however, so I will use Bokmål Norwegian examples to show that these nouns have the same morphological and syntactic behaviour as any other noun: (2.79) a.

c.

NORWEGIAN (BOKMÅL) et utseende IDF.N.SG appearanceN ‘an appearance’

b.

utseende-t appearence-DEF.N.SG ‘the appearance’

det

god-e utseende-t good-DEF appearance-DEF.N.SG ‘the good looks’ DEF.N.SG

25 A few nonparticipial adjectives can be used in the same way as the participles discussed in

the text. That is, they can appear without any visible noun, and without any unexpressed noun being recoverable from the context. A preposed determiner is obligatory, and if its form is compatible with masculine or common gender (it is often plural), the phrase will be taken to refer to people, as the Norwegian examples in (i) illustrate. (i)a.

dei

ung-e young-DEF ‘young people’ DEF.PL

c.

b. dei

Grøn-e Green-DEF ‘the members of the Green party’ DEF.PL

den

vond-e evil-DEF ‘the evil one’ DEF.SG

If the gender is neuter, the phrase will have an abstract reference: (ii)a. det DEF.N.SG

‘evil’

vond-e evil-DEF

b. det

sann-e true.DEF ‘what is true; truth’ DEF.N.SG

Hence, we are dealing here with the constructions that Kester (1996) calls the human construction and the abstract construction, respectively. According to her, the adjectives are not nominalised in these cases. Most likely, phonologically empty nouns meaning HUMAN and ABSTRACT are involved, but I will not go into a discussion of the matter here.

DEFINITE DPS

75

The noun utseende in (2.79) corresponds formally to the present participle of the particle verb se ut “present an appearance”. However, as a native speaker of Norwegian I have the impression that utseende and other neuter nouns in –ende are more opaque morphologically than the common gender nouns in –ende/ –ande. That is, while it is easily recognised that a noun like reisande is morphologically identical to the present participle, it is less obvious in the case of nouns like utseende. This is the reason why I have glossed utseende simply as “appearance”. Concerning the syntax of neuter nouns in –ende, my suggestion is that they are not formed by means of a phonologically empty nominal head. Instead, they are reanalysed as N elements and therefore inserted under an N node. This gives the right predictions concerning the grammatical behaviour of these nouns, and it also captures their morphological opacity. 2.9 Summary In this chapter, I addressed first the ‘double definiteness’ varieties of Scandinavian—that is, Norwegian, Swedish and Faroese. I argued that in these varieties, definite DPs without prenominal modifiers are characterised by movement of nP to Spec-DP. This movement serves to identify D by supplying the DP projection with phonologically overt material, including a realisation of the definiteness feature that n shares with D, and it also gives the highest projection of the nominal phrase a nominal category feature, as required. But when adjectives or weak quantifiers (including numerals) intervene between n and D, movement of nP to Spec-DP is blocked. In then becomes necessary to spell out D as a prenominal determiner. I then looked more closely at the heads n and D, and I showed that they make different contributions to the semantics of the DP as a whole, even if their feature content is identical. An overtly definite n head gives the DP a specific reading, while an overtly definite D head supplies the inclusiveness (or uniqueness) that is characteristic of definite expressions. In the cases where nP moves to Spec-DP, the suffixed definiteness marker that is a realisation of n will trigger a specific reading, and after movement to Spec-DP it will also trigger an inclusive reading. But when nP does not move to Spec-DP, it is possible to tease apart the contributions of n and D, respectively. Next, I discussed the syntax and morphology of adjectival phrases in the light of the blocking effect I have claimed that adjectives have for the movement of nP to Spec-DP. The reason for addressing this topic in some detail is that it is not immediately obvious that adjectives in definite nominal phrases in Scandinavian are really definite. I showed that although their visible morphological marking is somewhat defective, these adjectives can be analysed as fully specified underlyingly. Hence, their blocking effect is expected. For Icelandic, my proposal was that the constituent that moves to Spec-DP in definite DPs is αP and not nP. I also suggested that while D in the ‘double

76

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

definiteness’ varieties of Scandinavian targets a definite and nominal constituent, D in Icelandic targets a nominal constituent with visible case. Constructions bearing a certain likeness to Icelandic definite nominal phrases are found in northern dialects of Swedish. It appears that in these dialects too the whole αP can move to Spec-DP, and even to Spec-DemP, so that the sequence consisting of adjective(s) and noun comes to precede the demonstrative, if there is one, in the surface order. But unlike what we see in Icelandic, numerals block the movement of αP in Northern Swedish. When a numeral is present, D is therefore spelled out as a determiner in Northern Swedish. For reasons that are not entirely clear, a demonstrative will then also be present, and the determiner will raise and adjoin to the demonstrative. A noticeable property of demonstratives in Northern Swedish is that they are not nominal. Because of this, they always attract a constituent with nominal features. If αP has raised to Spec-DP, αP will be attracted, but if αP has not raised, and D is spelled out, D will be attracted. Concerning the fact that adjectives form a prosodic word with the noun in Northern Swedish definite DPs, a phenomenon often referred to as ‘adjective incorporation’, I argued that it is simply a matter of phonology, not a reflex of syntactic operations. In Danish, a noun that is preceded by an adjective or numeral never carries a suffixed definiteness marker. In this respect, Danish differs from all other varieties of Scandinavian. I therefore proposed that while the suffixed article is a realisation of n in other Scandinavian varieties, it is a realisation of D in Danish. On this view, the difference between West Jutlandic—with preposed determiners only—and other varieties of Danish is that the latter has movement of nP to Spec-DP while this operation is missing in West Jutlandic. When a Danish noun appears with a suffixed definiteness marker, this is then the result of D having formed a word with the nP in Spec-DP. The last issue dealt with in this chapter was certain types of Scandinavian nouns that do not take nominal inflection. I argued that these nouns, which are formally identical to participles, have been formed by combining the participle with a phonologically empty N head. When this N head raises to Num and n, the latter heads also remain without any phonological realisation, and the result is that no nominal inflection markers show up. Further, the nP will not be attracted by D, and consequently, the nouns under discussion always combine with a preposed determiner when they are definite.

CHAPTER 3 DETERMINERS AND RELATIVE CLAUSES

3.1 Introduction In light of the analyses I have just given of the distribution of preposed and suffixed definiteness markers in the Scandinavian languages, certain properties of DPs with relative clauses are quite unexpected. In this chapter I will deal with these properties, which have to do with the distribution of definiteness markers and in particular of prenominal determiners. In 3.2 I present the basic facts, and in 3.3 I sketch an analysis of the syntax of relative clause constructions from which the distribution of definiteness markers can be derived. Some further consequences of my analysis are pointed out in 3.4. A summary follows in 3.5. 3.2 Determiners in relative clause constructions In this section we will first see that in Scandinavian, a preposed determiner can be present in restrictive relative clause constructions even when there are no prenominal modifiers. This effect is not seen in nonrestrictive relative clause constructions. I then show that the preposed determiner becomes obligatory if a restrictive relative clause construction has nonspecific reference. Finally, I look at relative clause constructions that contain or function as proper names. 3.2.1 Restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses In Faroese, Norwegian and Swedish, relative clauses have certain noticeable consequences for the nominal phrases that they appear with. In these ‘double definiteness’ varieties of Scandinavian, definite DPs with restrictive relative clauses allow a prenominal determiner even in the absence of prenominal modifiers. This is illustrated in (3.1), (3.2) and (3.3). (3.1) a.

b.

FAROESE tann maður-inn, sum gjørdi DEF.M.SG.NOM man.NOM-DEF. M.SG.NOM RC did ‘the man who did this’ maður-inn, sum gjørdi man.NOM-DEF. M.SG.NOM RC did ‘the man who did this’

hettar this

hettar this

78

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

(3.2) a.

b.

(3.3) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN den jent-a som kom først DEF.SG girl-DEF.F.SG RC came first ‘the girl who came first’ jent-a som kom først girl-DEF.F.SG RC came first ‘the girl who came first’ SWEDISH det hus(-et) som han köpte DEF.N.SG house-DEF.N.SG RC he bought ‘the house that he bought’ hus-et som han köpte house-DEF.N.SG RC he bought ‘the house that he bought’

When the preposed determiner is present, it is possible to leave out the suffixed definite article. I have however indicated this possibility only in the Swedish example, in (3.3a), since it appears that the option is more frequently used in this variety (see Delsing 1993, Platzack 2000). Lockwood (1977:107) states that the suffixed definite article can also be left out in the Faroese example in (3.1a), but Zakaris Hansen (p.c.) informs me that it would sound rather unnatural. In Norwegian, examples where the suffixed article is absent from a definite noun that combines with a restrictive relative clause can sometimes be found in the written language, but they have a distinct bookish flavour. We also see that in all three varieties, definite nouns with restrictive relative clauses can alternatively appear without a prenominal determiner. The suffixed definite article is then strictly obligatory—see the (b) examples above. Concerning the distribution of the (a) and (b) types, Lars-Olof Delsing (p.c.) informs me that (b) is the most frequent choice in Swedish, while Zakaris Hansen (p.c.) tells me that (a) and (b) are equally good in Faroese. These generalisations are somewhat impressionistic at present, however. I have better data for Norwegian, though. A search in the Oslo Corpus of Tagged Norwegian Texts showed that the option without the prenominal determiner is nearly twice as frequent as the option with the prenominal determiner in all types of written texts, both in Bokmål and in Nynorsk. Still, the frequency of the (a) type, with the determiner, is a little higher in Nynorsk than in Bokmål, and also a little higher in fiction texts than in newspaper texts. But interestingly, a search in the fiction texts in the corpus showed that there is considerable individual variation: some writers prefer to leave out the preposed determiner in the relevant cases, some prefer to include it, while others use both options with more or less

DETERMINERS AND RELATIVE CLAUSES

79

the same frequency. What I have not yet been able to establish is whether these individual differences can be connected to regional differences.1 In a definite DP with a nonrestrictive relative clause, by contrast, there is no prenominal determiner if there is no prenominal modifier. In other words, nonrestrictive relative clauses have no effect on the distribution of definiteness markers in the DP. Thus, the initial element in (3.4a), which might at first look like a prenominal determiner, must be interpreted as a demonstrative. In (3.4b) I show the normal realisation in Swedish of a definite DP with a nonrestrictive relative clause. Faroese and Norwegian behave like Swedish in this respect. (3.4) a.

SWEDISH (cf. Platzack 2000) Det hus*(-et), som han för övrigt ville that.N.SG house-DEF.N.SG RC he by the way wanted riva, är nu till salu. demolish is now for sale ‘That house, which he by the way wanted to demolish, is now for sale.’

b.

Hus*(-et), som han för övrigt ville riva, är house-DEF.N.SG RC he by the way wanted demolish is nu till salu. now for sale ‘The house, which he by the way wanted to demolish, is now for sale.’

In Danish relative clause constructions, the correlate (i.e. the noun that is modified by the relative clause) may have a preposed or a suffixed determiner. However, for most speakers the two options are semantically different, such that the preposed determiner goes with a restrictive reading of the relative clause, while the suffixed determiner goes with a nonrestrictive reading of the relative clause (Hankamer & Mikkelsen 2002). I give examples of this in (3.5). (3.5) a.

DANISH (Hankamer & Mikkelsen 2002:144) den hest, der vandt løb-et DEF.CG.SG horse there won race-DEF.SG.N ‘the horse that won the race’

1 I suspect, though, that speakers from the southeast of Norway have a greater tendency to use

the prenominal determiner in restrictive relative clause constructions than speakers from other parts of the country. The results from the corpus search as well as the judgements of the few people I have asked point in this direction.

80

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

b.

hest-en, der vandt løb-et hest-DEF.CG.SG there won race-DEF.SG.N ‘the horse, which won the race’ % ‘the horse that won the race’

For some speakers, mainly younger people, the relative clause construction in (3.5b), with a suffixed definite article on the noun, can also get a restrictive interpretation, as indicated (Hankamer & Mikkelsen 2002). 3.2.2 Relative clause constructions with nonspecific reference When we look deeper into the distribution of determiners in Scandinavian relative clause constructions, the facts become even more intricate. It appears that at least in Norwegian, the preposed determiner is nearly obligatory in restrictive relative clause constructions with a nonspecific reference. Below, I illustrate this with two (slightly edited) examples from the Oslo Corpus. The expression in (3.6a) is rhetoric: the implication is that there is no such Bergener, since all bed sheets in Bergen come from the Arne textile factory. And as indicated, the prenominal determiner in the relative clause construction is strictly obligatory. In (3.6b) the relative clause construction has a generic reading, and the prenominal determiner is less obligatory, although it is clearly preferable to include it. (3.6) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN ((a) is NYNORSK, (b) is BOKMÅL) Vis meg *(den) bergensar(-en) som ikkje vart til show me DEF.SG Bergener-DEF RC not became to på eit Arne-laken. on IDF.N.SG Arne-sheet ‘Show me the Bergener who was not conceived on an Arne-sheet.’ Lærer-ne prøver å plukke ut ??(de) elev-e-ne teachers.DEF.PL try to pick out DEF.PL pupil-PL-DEF som bruker stoff. RC use drugs ‘The teachers try to pick out those pupils who use drugs.’

Note that the meaning of the definite relative clause constructions in (3.6) could just as well be conveyed by indefinite relative clause constructions, as in (3.7).

DETERMINERS AND RELATIVE CLAUSES

(3.7) a.

b.

81

NORWEGIAN ((a) is NYNORSK, (b) is BOKMÅL) Vis meg ein bergensar som ikkje vart til på eit show me IDF Bergener RC not became to on IDF Arne-laken. Arne-sheet ‘Show me a Bergener who was not conceived on an Arne-sheet.’ Lærer-ne prøver å plukke ut elev-er som teachers.DEF.PL try to pick out pupils-DEF RC bruker stoff. use drugs ‘The teachers try to pick out pupils who use drugs.’

By contrast, if we leave out the preposed determiner in (3.6a) the meaning changes drastically. The implication in (3.8) is that there is exactly one such person. That is, we get the inclusive and specific reading that is typical of definite nominal phrases. (3.8)

NORWEGIAN Vis meg bergensar-en som ikkje vart til på eit show me Bergener-DEF RC not became to on IDF Arne-laken. Arne-sheet ‘Show me the Bergener who was not conceived on an Arne-sheet.’

It has also been observed that it is easier to leave out the suffixed definite article in definite relative clause constructions with a nonspecific reading than in definite relative clause constructions with a specific reading. In fact, Faarlund et al. (1997:309) state that in Norwegian, presence of the suffixed article goes with a specific reading while absence of the suffixed article goes with a nonspecific reading. One of their example pairs is shown in (3.9), where (3.9a) has a specific reading while (3.9b) has a nonspecific reading. (3.9) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN (BOKMÅL) Den spiller-en som sitter der borte DEF.SG player-DEF RC sits there away ‘The player sitting over there is cheating.’

jukser. cheats

Den spiller som får høyest tall begynner. DEF.SG player RC gets highest number begins ‘The player who gets the highest number begins.’

82

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

In this respect, relative clause constructions are like nominal phrases with prenominal modifiers, which were discussed in chapter 2, section 2.3. But it needs to be added here that the version with a preposed and a suffixed determiner can have either a specific or a nonspecific reading—compare (3.9a) and (3.10b). The real difference between specific and nonspecific definite relative clause constructions is that the preposed determiner is (more or less) optional in specific definite relative clause constructions—compare (3.9a) and (3.10a), while the suffixed article is (more or less) optional in nonspecific definite relative clause constructions—compare (3.9b) and (3.10b). (3.10) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN (BOKMÅL) Spiller-en som sitter der borte jukser. player-DEF RC sits there away cheats ‘The player sitting over there is cheating.’ Den spiller-en som får høyest tall begynner. DEF.SG player-DEF RC gets highest number begins ‘The player who gets the highest number begins.’

The situation is not very different in Swedish. In this variety too the preposed determiner will be present in definite relative clause constructions with a nonspecific reading, as shown in (3.11). (3.11) a.

b.

SWEDISH ((b) is from Delsing 1993:119) Den spelare(?-n som får hög-st-a siffra-n börjar. DEF.SG player-DEF RC gets high-SUP-DEF figure-DEF begins ‘The player who gets the highest figure begins.’ Den sju-år-ig-e pojke(?-n) som klarar DEF.SG seven-year-ADJ-DEF boy-DEF RC manages finns inte. exists not ‘A seven year old boy who can do this does not exist.’

detta this

But unlike Norwegian, in Swedish the suffixed article is preferably absent in definite relative clause constructions with a nonspecific reading, at least for many speakers (Delsing 1993, Holmberg 1993). Recall that leaving out the suffixed article is also possible in definite relative clause constructions with a specific reading in Swedish, but it is crucially dependent on the presence of a prenominal determiner. The next fact I want to draw attention to is that predicative definite nominals with relative clauses also preferably appear with a prenominal determiner. Again, I give some Norwegian examples from the Oslo Corpus:

83

DETERMINERS AND RELATIVE CLAUSES

(3.12) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN ((a) is NYNORSK, (b) is BOKMÅL) E er ?*(den) vokal-en som er lettast å få til. E is DEF.SG vowel-DEF RC is easiest to manage ‘E is the vowel that is easiest to produce.’ R. J. Fischer er ?*(den) spiller-en som har størst R. J. F. is DEF.SG player-DEF RC has greatest publikum-s-appell. public-Ø-appeal ‘R. J. Fischer is the player that has the greatest public appeal.’

The following example, also from the Oslo Corpus, shows that the superlative found in the relative clauses in (3.12) is not a necessary condition for the presence of the preposed determiner: (3.13)

NORWEGIAN Morten var ikkje ?*(den) mann-en som let Morten was not DEF.SG man-DEF RC let merke med det. notice with it ‘Morten was not the man to take any notice of it.’

seg 3REFL

It can be demonstrated that the relative clause constructions in the examples above are really predicates. I will not go into details here; I will only show, in (3.14), that the relative clause construction in (3.12a) can be the predicate of a small clause.2 This suggests that the construction is a predicate also in (3.12a). (3.14)

NORWEGIAN Eg reknar E som den vokal-en som er lettast å I count E as DEF.SG vowel-DEF RC is easiest to få til. manage ‘I consider E the vowel that is easiest to produce.’

If a relative clause construction functions as a proper name, on the other hand, the prenominal determiner is normally absent, as in the following examples ((3.15b) is from the Oslo Corpus):

2 In a parallel fashion to (3.14), Partee (1987) uses embedding under consider as a test for

predicatehood. This test is dealt with in more detail in chapter 7.

84

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

(3.15) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN Fantom-et blir også kalt “Ånd-en som går”. phantom-DEF becomes also called ghost-DEF RC walks ‘The Phantom is also called “The Ghost Who Walks”.’ I dag er han “mann-en som alltid vil minna-st i today is he man-DEF RC always will remember-PASS in Årdal”. Årdal ‘Today he is “The man who will always be remembered in Årdal”.’

The second name in (3.15a) always appears in the form shown here, without a preposed determiner. Compared to this, the relative clause construction in (3.15b) has an ad hoc flavour, and it would not be impossible to add a preposed determiner. It is nevertheless clear that for speakers who (like myself) prefer to have a preposed determiner in ordinary definite, restrictive and specific relative clause constructions, the need for a preposed determiner is not felt here. 3.2.3 Relative clause constructions and proper names The absence of the prenominal determiner in the examples above contrasts strikingly with the effect that restrictive relative clauses have on proper names. As is well known from English, if a proper name combines with a restrictive relative clause, a prenominal determiner is required, as illustrated in (3.16b). If, on the other hand, the name combines with a nonrestrictive relative clause, as in (3.16c), there is no prenominal determiner. (3.16) a. b. c.

ENGLISH (*the) Paris *(the) Paris that I know (*the) Paris, which I know well

The pattern is exactly the same in Scandinavian. I show this for Norwegian in (3.17) and for Icelandic in (3.18).3 Note that in Icelandic, we get the same pre-

3 All varieties of Scandinavian would have the contrast shown here as long as the proper name

is not a person name. However, in Icelandic and Faroese, and in most Norwegian and some Swedish dialects, person names appear with a (pronominal) determiner, regardless of what other elements are present in the nominal phrase. These dialects have the pattern shown in (i). (i)a.

ho Else som eg kjenner she Else RC I know ‘the Else that I know’

b. ho Else, som eg kjenner she Else RC I know ‘Else, who I know well’

godt well

DETERMINERS AND RELATIVE CLAUSES

85

nominal determiner in (3.18a) as we saw in front of an adjective in chapter 2, example (2.47a), in a DP where the nominal head was deleted. That is, the prenominal determiner that shows up when proper names take relative clauses is not the one that alternates (more or less freely) with the suffixed definite article; it is the one that is used when there is no other way to meet the requirements of D. (3.17) a.

NORWEGIAN (*det) Paris DEF.N.SG Paris ‘Paris’

b.

*(det) Paris som eg kjenner DEF.N.SG Paris RC I know ‘the Paris that I know’

c.

(*det) Paris, som eg kjenner godt DEF.N.SG Paris RC I know well ‘Paris, which I know well’

(3.18) a.

b.

ICELANDIC (*sú) París DEF.F.SG.NOM Paris ‘Paris’ sú

París Paris ‘the Paris that I knew’ DEF.F.SG.NOM

c.

sem ég RC I

París, sem ég þekkti Paris RC I knew ‘Paris, which I knew well’

þekkti knew

vel well

The distribution of definiteness markers in Scandinavian relative clause constructions calls for an explanation. In the next section I will go on to sketch an analysis.

That is, in these varieties person names never move to D; D is instead identified by virtue of being spelled out as a pronominal element (also called a proprial article). Adjectives, relative clauses and other elements that the name may combine with then have no consequences for D.

86

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

3.3 Towards an analysis In this section we will look more closely at the relation between the relative clause and the preposed determiner, and also at the differences between restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clause constructions. After that I present my proposals concerning the syntactic structure of restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clause constructions. 3.3.1 Relative clauses and preposed determiners The examples shown in (3.16), (3.17) and (3.18) suggest that a restrictive relative clause can trigger the presence of the preposed definite determiner. The correlation between restrictive relative clauses and definite determiners is well known from the linguistic literature. It is not only seen with proper names, but also with idioms, as in (3.19), type-expressions, as in (3.20), and with certain other expressions (see Vergnaud 1985, Kayne 1994, Bianchi 1999, Schmitt 2000). (3.19) a. b.

ENGLISH John made {OKsome/*the} headway. The headway that John made was amazing.

(3.20) ENGLISH a. * Mary bought the type of car. b. Mary bought the type of car she had always dreamed of. Constructions parallel to (3.19) and (3.20) are also found in Scandinavian. In the idiomatic expression in (3.21a) the object DP cannot be definite. In (3.21b) it must be definite, and in particular, the preposed definite determiner is obligatory. (3.21) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN Else drog fordel(*-en) av situasjon-en. Else drew advantage-DEF of situation-DEF ‘Else benefited from the situation.’ Else drog *(den) fordel(-en) av situasjon-en som Else drew DEF.SG advantage(-DEF) of situation-DEF RC var muleg. was possible ‘Else benefited as much as possible from the situation.’

In (3.22a), the element den in front of type(-n) can only be interpreted as a demonstrative, but in (3.22b), den is just a determiner.

87

DETERMINERS AND RELATIVE CLAUSES

(3.22) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN Gunn kjøpte den type(-n) Gunn bought that type-DEF ‘Gunn bought THAT type of car.’

bil. car

Gunn kjøpte den type(-n) bil (som) Gunn bought DEF.SG type-DEF car RC seg. 3REFL ‘Gunn bought the type of car she wished for.’

ho she

ønska wished

For the record, I show in (3.23) that postnominal PPs do not normally trigger the prenominal determiner in Scandinavian, regardless of whether the nominal is a common noun or a proper name: (3.23) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN (*den) bergensar-en i klass-a mi DEF.SG Bergener-DEF in class-DEF my.F.SG ‘the Bergener in my class’ Karlsson på tak-et Karlsson on roof-DEF ‘Karlsson on the roof’

The fact that restrictive relative clauses appear to trigger the presence of definite determiners has led some researchers to propose that the definite determiner bears a closer relation to the relative clause than to the nominal correlate. Although it goes back as far as Vergnaud (1985), this idea has most famously been put forward by Kayne (1994). On Kayne’s analysis, a relative clause is the complement of the D that is spelled out as the definite determiner. To give an example, the syntactic structure that would be assigned to (3.2a) under such an analysis is the following: (3.24)

[DP [D den] [CP [nP jenta] [C som] [jenta] kom først]]

Here the D takes a CP complement, and the correlate, which presumably is an nP, has been raised from inside the relative clause and sits in the Spec-CP of that clause. D is spelled out as a prenominal determiner, and C is spelled out as the relative complementiser som.4 4 The relative complementiser som is obligatory when the subject is relativised, but optional in

other cases, such as for example in (3.22b), where an object is relativised.

88

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

3.3.2 Identification of D in relative clause constructions However, an analysis like the one sketched in (3.24) raises certain questions given what I have said earlier in this chapter and in the preceding chapter. Firstly, when there is a prenominal modifier in a relative clause construction, there will also be a prenominal determiner if the construction is definite, regardless of whether the following relative clause is restrictive or nonrestrictive. For space reasons, the Norwegian examples in (3.25) represent the ‘double definiteness’ varieties, while Danish is shown in (3.26). (3.25) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN den vesle jent-a som kom først DEF.SG little.DEF.SG girl-DEF.F.SG RC came first ‘the little girl who came first’ den

vesle jent-a, som kom først little.DEF.SG girl-DEF.F.SG RC came first ‘the little girl, who came first’ DEF.SG

(3.26) a.

b.

DANISH den sort-e hest, der vandt DEF.CG.SG black-DEF horse there won ‘the black horse that won the race’

løb-et race-DEF.SG.N

den

sort-e hest, der er fire år gammel black-DEF horse there is four years old ‘the black horse, which is four years old’ DEF.CG.SG

The obligatory presence of the prenominal determiner in these examples indicates that DPs with relative clauses are like other DPs in the need for the DP projection to contain phonologically overt material when D plays a part in the specification of the reference of the phrase as a whole. Now consider the relative clause constructions without preposed determiners that were shown in section 3.2. If it is true, for the ‘double definiteness’ varieties of Scandinavian, that the absence of a preposed determiner is due to nP having moved to SpecDP, as I argued in the preceding chapter, we would take the correlate nP to have been attracted to Spec-DP in (3.1b), (3.2b) and (3.3b). The DP in (3.1b), for example, then has the following syntactic structure: (3.27)

[DP [nP maðurinn ] D [CP [maðurinn ] [C sum] [maðurinn ] gjørdi hettar]]

Movement of nP to Spec-DP must also have taken place in the nonrestrictive relative clause constructions in (3.4ab) and (3.5b). In fact, movement of the

DETERMINERS AND RELATIVE CLAUSES

89

correlate to Spec-DP must be obligatory in nonrestrictive relative clause constructions when there is no prenominal modifier. In relative clause constructions with prenominal modifiers, as in (3.7) and (3.8), it follows from Kayne’s analysis that the correlate has projected to αP, and this αP has moved to Spec-CP, as sketched below: (3.28)

[DP [D den] [CP [αP vesle jenta] [C som] [vesle jenta] kom først]]

But as we have seen, Mainland Scandinavian (except for Northern Swedish) does not normally have αP-movement. An analysis like (3.28) would therefore need some further motivation to be convincing. 3.3.3 Scope relations in relative clause constructions There are moreover some important and well-known differences between restrictive relative clauses and nonrestrictive relative clauses that must be taken into account. When the nominal correlate combines with a quantifier, a restrictive relative clause will be inside the scope of the quantifier, while a nonrestrictive relative clause will be outside that scope. The examples in (3.29), taken from Bianchi (1999:36), illustrate this. (3.29) a. b.

ENGLISH Mary knows few boys who enjoy knitting ⇒ / Mary knows few boys Mary knows few boys, who enjoy knitting ⇒ Mary knows few boys

The contrast shown in (3.29) can be reproduced in Scandinavian. Of the sentences given below, (3.30a) does not entail (3.30c), but (3.30b) does. (3.30) a.

NORWEGIAN Kari kjenner noen få gutter som kan strikke. Kari knows some few boys RC can knit ‘Kari knows a few boys who can knit.’

b.

Kari kjenner noen få gutter, som kan strikke. Kari knows some few boys RC can knit ‘Kari knows a few boys, who can knit.’

c.

Kari kjenner noen få gutter. Kari knows some few boys ‘Kari knows a few boys.’

Furthermore, Platzack (2000) notes that an element inside the correlate may license a polarity item inside a restrictive relative clause, but it cannot license a polarity item inside a nonrestrictive relative clause. For example, the superla-

90

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

tive adjective vackraste “most beautiful” in (3.31a) licenses the negative polarity item någonsin “ever” in the relative clause that follows, but in (3.31b), a negative polarity item inside the nonrestrictive relative clause cannot be licensed in this way. (3.31) a.

b.

SWEDISH (Platzack 2000:281) Den vackr-ast-e flicka (som) han någonsin DEF.CG.SG beautiful-SUP-DEF girl RC he ever hade sett stod framför honom. had seen stood in.front.of him ‘The most beautiful girl he had ever seen was standing in front of him.’ Den vackr-ast-e flicka-n, som han för övrigt DEF.CG.SG beautiful-SUP-DEF girl-DEF RC he by the way (*någonsin) hade träffat, var läkare. ever had met was doctor ‘The most beautiful girl, who he by the way had (*ever) met, was a doctor.’

To account for contrasts like the one in (3.31), Kayne (1994) proposes that restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses have the same structure in the overt syntax, but that nonrestrictive relative clauses involve an additional movement operation at LF—namely, that of moving the IP to the Spec of D. However, in Scandinavian overt movement does not necessarily disrupt licensing of polarity items. In (3.32), for example, the negative polarity item inside the embedded clause remains licensed by the matrix negation even after the fronting of the embedded clause. This indicates that the embedded clause reconstructs back into the position where the negative polarity item is c-commanded by the negation. (3.32)

SWEDISH Att vi någonsin skulle komma dit trodde jag that we ever should come there thought I ‘I did not think we would ever get there.’

inte. not

It is then not clear how covert movement of IP to Spec-DP could disrupt the licensing of the negative polarity item in (3.31b). Moreover, in my model there is also another problem with the idea that the IP of a nonrestrictive relative clause raises covertly to Spec-DP. My theory postulates that nP moves to SpecDP in the cases where D itself is not spelled out—see (3.27). This movement is not likely to be compatible with movement of IP to Spec-DP.

DETERMINERS AND RELATIVE CLAUSES

91

Also note that the effect in (3.31a) is seen even if there is a numeral in front of the adjective: (3.33)

SWEDISH De två vackr-ast-e flick-or han någonsin DEF.PL two beautiful-SUP-DEF girl-PL he ever hade sett… had seen… ‘The two most beautiful girls he had ever seen…’

On a Kaynean analysis the correlate would presumably be the whole CardP in this case. The problem is then that the adjective is too deeply embedded in the projection of the nominal correlate to be able to c-command out of it, and consequently, we cannot explain the licensing of the negative polarity item. I will instead investigate the possibility that the nonrestrictive relative clause in (3.31b) is generated outside the scope of the quantifier, while the restrictive relative clause in (3.31a) is generated inside that scope, as Platzack (2000) proposes. At the same time, I reject the raising analysis of relative clause constructions, that is, the idea that the nominal correlate originates inside the relative clause. Arguments for the raising analysis are based on data like those in (3.34), which are taken from Bianchi (1999:108). As we see, as far as binding is concerned the correlate portrait of himself/John behaves as if it reconstructs into the relative clause. (3.34) ENGLISH a. The portrait of himselfi that Johni painted is extremely flattering. b. * The portrait of Johni that hei painted is extremely flattering. However, Platzack (2000) points out that the facts are not always as the raising analysis predicts. For example, while the reflexive sin in (3.35a) continues to be bound by Sara after the DP containing sin has been fronted, sin inside the correlate in (3.35b) cannot be bound by the subject of the relative clause. (3.35) a.

SWEDISH (Platzack 2000:267) Brev-et från sini lärare la Sarai på bord-et. letter-DEF from 3REFL.POSS teacher put Sara on table-DEF ‘The letter from her teacher Sara put on the table.’

b. * Var la du brev-et från sini lärare som where put you letter-DEF from 3REFL.POSS teacher RC Sarai fick? Sara got ‘Where did you put the letter from her teacher that Sara got?’

92

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

But if the correlate originates as the object of the relative clause, the indicated binding relation should be possible in either of these examples. 3.3.4 The proposal: nonrestrictive relative clauses For the reasons just mentioned, I will follow Platzack (2000) and Schmitt (2000) and give up the raising analysis of relatives. For nonrestrictive relative clause constructions I propose the syntactic structure sketched in (3.36). As we see, I take the highest projection to be a DP that has a CP complement, as in Kayne (1994). However, with Schmitt (1999) I take the nominal correlate to be generated in the highest Spec of the complement of the DP, that is Spec-CP, and to be coindexed with a relative operator sitting in the Spec of the projection immediately below it, which I call RelP for lack of a better term. The operator has moved from the position where the relativised gap is found, and it can be phonologically empty or spelled out as a relative pronoun. Note that RelP is clearly different from focus and topic projections, since relative pronouns can be followed by topics and by focused elements (as pointed out by Puskas 2003). As for the Scandinavian relative complementiser sem/som/sum, I take it to be a realisation of C. (3.36)

Nonrestrictive relative clause construction DP1 DP2

D1' D1

CP DP2

C' C

RelP Op

Rel' Rel

… IP Op

Schmitt (1999) uses the term AgrP for the projection that I call CP, and the term CP for the projection that I call RelP. She also suggests, however, that her AgrP could be one of the projections of CP, so the two proposals are in reality quite similar. A comparable structure is also found in Bianchi (1999), except that in addition to using the term Topic for the head that has the operator in its

DETERMINERS AND RELATIVE CLAUSES

93

Spec, she takes the correlate to be generated with the operator and to have split off from that phrase at a later stage. On my analysis, it is the operator, not the correlate, that is related to an empty position inside the relative clause. Also note that the correlate is itself a DP, as in Platzack’s (2000) analysis of nonrestrictive relative clause constructions. This explains the fact that nonrestrictive relative clauses in Scandinavian have no effect on the distribution of determiners in the nominal phrase that they combine with. Consider again (3.4b), for example, which is repeated below as (3.37), and (3.5b), repeated as (3.38). (3.37)

SWEDISH (=3.4b) Hus-et, som han för övrigt ville riva, house-DEF.N.SG RC he by the way wanted demolish är nu till salu. is now for sale ‘The house, which he by the way wanted to demolish, is now for sale.’

(3.38)

DANISH (=3.5b) hest-en, der vandt løb-et hest-DEF.CG.SG there won race-DEF.N.SG ‘the horse, which won the race’

Since there are no prenominal modifiers to the correlate here, a preposed determiner does not appear either. The reason for this is, in my model, that the correlate comes with its own DP projection, which is termed DP2 in (3.36). Since the relative clause is outside of DP2, the internal syntax of DP2 will be totally unaffected by the presence of the relative clause. When there are no prenominal modifiers, the nP inside DP2 moves to Spec-DP2, and the result is, in the ‘double definiteness’ varieties as well as in Danish, that the noun has a suffixed definiteness marker but no preposed definiteness marker. When DP2 contains adjectives or numerals, on the other hand, movement of nP to Spec-DP2 is blocked, and the consequence is that D must be spelled out as a prenominal determiner, as illustrated in (3.25b) and (3.26b). In either case, the higher DP projection—DP1 in (3.36)—gets identified by movement of DP2 to the Spec of DP1. Consequently, there is never any need to spell out the higher D of a nonrestrictive relative clause construction. It also follows from this analysis that quantifiers and adjectives modifying the correlate will be located inside DP2, and because of this, they will not be able to take scope over an element lower down in the relative clause. 3.3.5 The proposal: restrictive relative clauses

94

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

Turning now to the restrictive relative clause construction in (3.31a), where a negative polarity item inside the relative clause is licensed by the superlative adjective that precedes the nominal correlate, my proposal is that its syntactic structure is as shown in (3.39). As we see, I take the relative CP itself to be like the relative CP found in nonrestrictive relative clause constructions, except that in the construction under discussion this CP is embedded under α. Consequently, the adjectival phrase in Spec-αP c-commands into the relative CP. The correlate sits in Spec-CP, just like in (3.36), but while the correlate in (3.36) is a full DP, the correlate in (3.39) is just an nP. This nP cannot move to Spec-DP, because of the intervening AP (see chapter 2, section 2.2), and consequently, D is spelled out as a prenominal determiner. (3.39)

Restrictive relative clause construction with prenominal modifier DP αP

D

α'

AP α

CP nP

C' C

RelP Op

Rel' Rel

… IP Op

The grammaticality of (3.32) follows from my analysis. Since the CP is the complement of α, the adjective will c-command the CP regardless of whether numerals or other elements intervene between D and α. Examples like (3.29a) and (3.30a), where a quantifier that combines with the head noun takes scope over the relative clause, would get a parallel analysis, except that the αP is replaced by a CardP. A quantifier in Spec-CardP will then c-command the whole relative clause. There is in fact independent evidence in Scandinavian that an α can have a CP complement. Consider the (Bokmål) Norwegian examples in (3.40), which

DETERMINERS AND RELATIVE CLAUSES

95

were all found in the Oslo Corpus. In all three examples we have the sequence Determiner-Adjective-CP. (3.40) a.

NORWEGIAN (BOKMÅL) Han peker på det paradoksal-e at det er he points at DEF.N.SG paradoxical-DEF that it is tsjetsjener-ne-s gisler som er blitt deres beste Chechen-DEF.PL-POSS hostages RC are become their best talsmenn. spokesmen ‘He points to the paradox (the paradoxical fact) that the Chechens’ hostages have become their best spokesmen.’

b.

Da skjer det merkelig-e at hun begynner then happens DEF.N.SG strange-DEF that she begins å snakke. to speak ‘Then the strange thing happens that she begins to speak.’

c.

De ber bare om det selvsagt-e at de får they ask only for DEF.N.SG obvious-DEF that they may konkurrere på like vilkår. compete on equal terms ‘They only ask for the obvious that they be allowed to compete on equal terms.’

For (3.40a) one could however argue that the adjective is followed by a phonologically empty noun, since it would be possible to insert a noun such as faktum “fact” between the adjective paradoksale “paradoxical” and the complementiser at “that” here. But if one were to postulate that there is also an empty noun in front of the embedded CP in (3.40b) and (3.40c), one would be facing the problem that it does not seem to be possible to spell out this noun overtly. In the case of (3.40b), the noun hendelse “event, incident” might be a candidate, were it not for the fact that hendelse is masculine while the determiner in front of the adjective in (3.40b) is neuter. Hence, if a phonologically empty noun is present here, its gender must be neuter. In (3.40c), there appears to be no noun at all that would fit in between the adjective and the complementiser. It is tempting to propose instead that there are no phonologically empty nouns in these examples, and that the α simply has a CP complement. The neuter gender marking on the determiner would then follow, since CPs trigger neuter agreement in Scandinavian (see Josefsson (to appear)).

96

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

As for restrictive relative clause constructions without modifiers preceding the correlate, I propose that they have the syntactic structure shown in (3.41). (3.41)

Restrictive relative clause construction without prenominal modifier DP (nP)

D' D

CP (nP)

C' C

RelP Op

Rel' Rel

… IP Op

Here D has a CP complement, just like in the case of nonrestrictive relative clause constructions.5 However, the correlate is an nP, not a DP. The variation that we saw in (3.1), (3.2) and (3.3) must mean that there are two ways to make DP projection visible in such cases. In Faroese, Norwegian and Swedish either nP moves to Spec-DP, or D is spelled out. In Danish, D will in any case be spelled out, since n is not, but there is nevertheless variation as to whether nP moves to Spec-DP or not. The facts further indicate that the choice is not entirely free within each individual grammar. But note that even the speakers who prefer to leave the 5 This structure arguably also has nonrelative realisations, just like the structure shown in

(3.39). Consider the Norwegian example given in (i). (i)

Det at så mange var med overraska meg. it that so many were with surprised me ‘That so many participated surprised me.’

The subject in (i) could be assigned the syntactic form [DP Det [CP at…]], which is exactly parallel to the analysed proposed by Picallo (2002) for similar expressions in Spanish. Note also that the DP-CP structure does not have to be a subject. It can appear in any argument position, for example as an object.

DETERMINERS AND RELATIVE CLAUSES

97

correlate nP inside CP in restrictive relative clauses will move the correlate DP to the highest Spec-DP in nonrestrictive relative clause constructions. Hence, it appears that whether the nP in constructions like (3.41) surfaces in Spec-DP or in Spec-CP depends on some minor parameter whose nature is still not known.6 In Danish there are additional complications that deserve to be mentioned here. If the relativised constituent in a restrictive relative clause construction is not the subject, the relative clause will be introduced by the relative complementiser som or by an empty element (see Vikner 1991): (3.42)

DANISH den fugl, (som) katt-en har dræbt DEF.CG.SG bird RC kat-DEF has killed ‘the bird (that) the cat has killed’

So far, Danish is similar to other Scandinavian varieties (except that in some Danish dialects, the relative som can be replaced by the nonrelative at—see Vikner 1991). However, if the subject is relativised in a nonrestrictive relative construction in Danish, som is still an option, as (3.43a) shows, but as we see from (3.43b), now an alternative is to replace som with der, which is formally identical to a subject expletive (Vikner 1991, Taraldsen 1992). In the colloquial language, som and der may also co-occur, as in (3.43c), and it is even possible to have the complementiser at “that” between som and der, as in (3.43d). (3.43) a.

b.

DANISH den kat, som dræbte fugl-en DEF.CG.SG cat RC killed bird-DEF ‘the cat that killed the bird’ den

kat, der dræbte fugl-en cat there killed bird-DEF ‘the cat that killed the bird’ DEF.CG.SG

c. ? den

kat, som der dræbte fugl-en cat RC there killed bird-DEF ‘the cat that killed the bird’ DEF.CG.SG

6 Interestingly, Manninen (2003) reports that in colloquial Finnish, the element se appears to

have a determiner function in front of a noun that is followed by a restrictive relative clause, even though Finnish does not normally make use of determiners. This fact could be taken to mean that the setting of the parameter in question is currently undergoing a change in Finnish.

98

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

d. ? den

kat, som at der dræbte fugl-en cat RC that there killed bird-DEF ‘the cat that killed the bird’ DEF.CG.SG

Since der only appears when the subject is relativised, and since it is formally identical to the subject expletive der, it is possible that der does not belong to the complementiser system at all. It could be a realisation of the operator, or it could be in the subject position, as Taraldsen (1992) argues. As for the cooccurrence of som and at, it suggests that C in (3.41) should be split up further, at least in restrictive relative constructions. I will however leave the details to future investigations. 3.4 Some consequences We have just seen that the distribution of definiteness markers in ordinary referential relative clause constructions in Scandinavian can be explained in my model. I will now explain how the obligatory presence of a preposed determiner in relative clause constructions with nonspecific reference can be accounted for in this model. After that, I deal with cases where the correlate and the relative operator do not have exactly the same set of features, and I show that this is in fact expected on my analysis of relative clauses. 3.4.1 The consequences of nonspecificity Concerning the relative clause constructions without specific reference that were presented earlier, consider again our Bergener examples, which I repeat here for convenience. (3.44) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN ((a)=(3.6a), (b)=(3.8)) Vis meg *(den) bergensar(-en) som ikkje vart til på show me DEF.SG Bergener-DEF RC not became to on eit Arne-laken. IDF.N.SG Arne-sheet ‘Show me the Bergener who was not conceived on an Arne-sheet.’ Vis meg bergensar-en som ikkje vart til på eit show me Bergener-DEF RC not became to on IDF Arne-laken. Arne-sheet ‘Show me the Bergener who was not conceived on an Arne-sheet.’

As I have already pointed out, the semantic contrast between (3.44a) and (3.44b) is very striking: (3.44a) implies that there is no such Bergener, whereas (3.44b) implies that there is exactly one. Now remember that in chapter 2, section 2.3 I concluded that specificity is encoded in the n head, and is therefore

DETERMINERS AND RELATIVE CLAUSES

99

related to the suffixed definiteness marker in the ‘double definiteness’ varieties of Scandinavian. It is then surprising that in the present examples, specificity seems to depend on the absence of the preposed definiteness marker. In other examples that we have already seen the preposed determiner appears to have no influence on the specificity of the nominal expression. I repeat two of these examples below. (3.45) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN (cf. (1.30) and (2.11d)) (den) vesle Anna DEF.SG little.DEF.SG Anna ‘(the) little Anna’ (den) venstre hand-a DEF.SG left hand-DEF ‘the left hand’

In (3.45a) the presence or absence of the prenominal determiner makes little difference as long as the adjective is nonrestrictive. In any case, the reference of the DP as a whole is determined by the name Anna, and spelling out D is optional. But if the adjective gets a restrictive interpretation, so that the name itself is not referring to a unique discourse referent, the definite D must be spelled out since there is no other definiteness marker in the DP. In (3.45b) D can be empty when the reference of the DP is fixed by a possessor relation, as we saw in chapter 2, section 2.2.3. But in neither case does the presence of the prenominal determiner give the DP a nonspecific reading. So how can the preposed determiner have this effect in (3.44)? I believe that the effect of the prenominal determiner in (3.44) is indirect, and that the specificity of the expression depends on n even here. The preposed determiner shows up in (3.44a) because nP has not moved to Spec-DP. The fact that the resulting construction is compatible with a nonspecific interpretation seems to suggest that the specific interpretation arises when nP moves to Spec-DP. But this cannot be correct. We saw in chapter 2, section 2.3 that DPs where an adjective or a numeral intervenes between nP and D, so that nP does not move, can have a specific or a nonspecific interpretation. In (3.46), for example, the only visible consequence of the difference between the two interpretations is that absence of the suffixed definiteness marker goes with the nonspecific interpretation. (3.46)

NORWEGIAN den gaml-e skole(-n) DEF.SG old-DEF school-DEF ‘the old school’

100

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

In other words, it appears that n must be spelled out if it is specific but can be phonologically empty if it is nonspecific. But crucially, the specific reading is available even when nP has not moved to Spec-DP. I therefore think we should take a different perspective on the matter. What I propose is that nP can be attracted to Spec-DP only if n is specific. In cases like (3.46) nP will not move anyway, because of the intervener. But for the construction in (3.44b) it follows that a specific interpretation is inevitable, since nP has moved to Spec-DP (which we see from the fact that D itself is not spelled out). The construction in (3.44a), on the other hand, where nP has not moved to Spec-DP, allows both a specific and a nonspecific reading. If the suffixed definite article is not spelled out, it must get a nonspecific interpretation, since in Norwegian, a definite n can be phonologically empty only if it is nonspecific (except in very literary style). The fact that it also tends to get a nonspecific interpretation if n is spelled out must be due to (pragmatic) factors outside the DP itself, since in its form, the DP is then identical to (3.2a), for example, which is more likely to get a specific interpretation. Also recall that a noun that has a postnominal PP but no prenominal modifiers does not normally appear with a preposed determiner in Scandinavian. This was shown in (3.23). However, if the combination of the noun and the PP has a non-specific reading, the preposed determiner is often present even here, as in the example below: (3.47) NORWEGIAN % Vardø er den by-en med størst arbeidsløyse. Vardø is DEF.SG town-DEF with greatest unemployment ‘Vardø is the town with the greatest unemployment.’ Personally, I do not think (3.47) is good (I would use a relative clause instead: den byen som har… “the town that has…”), but constructions of this type are nevertheless heard quite often. Again, the reason why the preposed determiner shows up must be that nP cannot move to Spec-CP, due to its lack of specificity. In (3.2a), repeated below as (3.48), the reason why nP has not moved to Spec-DP is not (necessarily) that n is nonspecific. Instead, the example reflects the grammar of those speakers of Scandinavian who prefer to let the correlate nP stay inside the restrictive relative clause, so that D gets spelled out as a prenominal determiner. (3.48)

NORWEGIAN (=3.2a) den jent-a som kom først DEF.SG girl-DEF.F.SG RC came first ‘the girl who came first’

DETERMINERS AND RELATIVE CLAUSES

101

Hence, the preposed determiner in (3.48) is due to a factor that is relevant only for restrictive relative clauses. Its presence has nothing to do with specificity. A final point concerning nonspecific relative clause constructions is that they can apparently be semantically indefinite even if they are formally definite. Delsing (1993), who refers to the construction in question as ‘generic’, observes this, and he gives the following example: (3.49)

SWEDISH (Delsing 1993:129) Det finns de lingvist-er som tror att all-t it exists DEF.PL linguist-PL RC think that all-N flyttar i LF. moves in LF ‘There exist linguists who think that everything moves in LF.’

Since the suffixed definite article is absent here, Delsing concludes that the definiteness effect depends on the presence of this element. However, in the Norwegian counterpart to (3.49) the suffixed definite article can be present, as shown in (3.50). (3.50)

NORWEGIAN Det finst dei lingvist-a-ne som trur at it exists DEF.PL linguist-PL-DEF RC think that ingenting flyttar. nothing moves ‘There exist linguists who think that nothing moves.’

Note that the postverbal DP in this example has the same shape as the DP in (3.51), which cannot appear as the postverbal associate of an expletive. (3.51) NORWEGIAN * Det sit den katt-a som eg snakka om på it sits DEF.SG cat-DEF RC I talked about on trapp-a. stairs-DEF Intended meaning: ‘The cat I was talking about is sitting on the stairs.’ The ungrammaticality of (3.51) must be connected to the specific reading that is assigned to the postverbal DP. It might also have to do with the nature of the preposed determiner. Kester (1996) proposes that the preposed determiner in constructions like (3.49) and (3.50) is a partitive marker, which happens to be formally identical to definiteness markers. In (3.51) we would then have a real definiteness marker. This idea might be worth exploring; in particular, it would

102

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

be interesting to see if it could also be relevant for constructions like (2.23a) in chapter 2. But for the time being we have to conclude once more that the definiteness effect is due to purely semantic factors, since it is not directly connected to any visible property of Scandinavian DPs. In section 3.2 we also saw that when definite relative clause constructions function as predicates, a preposed definiteness marker appears even in the absence of adjectives or numerals. This fact suggests that these constructions are probably DPs, just like argumental relative clause constructions (cf. chapter 7), and that because they have no specific reference, the correlate nP is not attracted to Spec-DP. If a definite relative clause construction functions as a proper name, on the other hand, the correlate nP will move to Spec-DP since the nominal has an inclusive and specific reference. Consequently, the preposed definite determiner will not appear. The example in (3.52a) illustrates this. But if a proper name combines with a restrictive relative clause, we get the opposite effect: the preposed determiner is then obligatory, as (3.52b) shows. (3.52) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN (cf. (3.15a), (3.17b)) “Ånd-en som går” ghost-DEF RC walks ‘The Ghost Who Walks’ det

Paris som eg Paris RC I ‘the Paris that I know’ DEF.N.SG

kjenner know

The explanation is straightforward: if the proper name moves to Spec-DP, the inclusiveness property will be associated with the name alone, and restrictive modification will not be possible. But if the nP that contains the name stays inside the relative CP, the inclusiveness and the specificity can be kept apart. D must then be phonologically realised, and consequently, a prenominal determiner shows up. 3.4.2 The correlate and the relative operator Another important property of relative clause constructions, according to the analysis that was presented in the preceding section, is that the nominal correlate is at every stage of the derivation separate from the element that is directly related to the gap in the relative clause, that is, from the relative operator. One advantage of this approach is that it opens up the possibility that the correlate and the operator need not have the same feature specification in all respects. And indeed, it appears that the correlate sometimes differs from the operator in ways that would be unexpected if the two originated as one constituent, as Kayne (1994) proposed.

DETERMINERS AND RELATIVE CLAUSES

103

Firstly, the correlate and the operator may differ with respect to definiteness. An example is given by Platzack (2000), who notes that so-called intensive reflexives can only appear with definite expressions. Thus, the example in (3.53a) is grammatical, but (3.53b) is ungrammatical because the intensive reflexive has combined with an indefinite noun. The construction in (3.53c), on the other hand, where the intensive reflexive is inside a relative clause, is grammatical. This must mean that the operator is definite even though the correlate is indefinite. (3.53) a. b. * c.

ENGLISH (Platzack 2000:300 n. 7) The plumber himself reads Sartre. A plumber himself reads Sartre. A plumber who himself reads Sartre said that I should take a look at it.

The pattern in (3.53) can be reproduced in Scandinavian. In Norwegian, the intensive sjølv “self” can combine with a definite noun, as in (3.54a), but not with an indefinite noun, as in (3.54b).7 However, as (3.54c) shows, when the intensive sjølv combines with the relative operator, the result is grammatical even if the correlate is indefinite. I conclude that the correlate and the operator may differ in their definiteness setting also in Scandinavian. (3.54) a.

NORWEGIAN Rørleggar-en sjølv reparerte vask-en. plumber-DEF self repaired sink-DEF ‘The plumber himself repaired the sink.’

b. * Ein IDF.M.SG c.

rørleggar sjølv reparerte vask-en. plumber self repaired sink-DEF

ein

rørleggar som sjølv reparerte vask-en plumber RC self repaired sink-DEF ‘a plumber who repaired the sink himself ’ IDF.M.SG

Gutiérrez-Rexach (2003) presents similar data from Spanish. As we see in (3.55a), a definite relative operator is compatible with a definite or an indefi-

7 The construction in (i) is grammatical, however, but it involves a different use of sjølv “self”.

(i)

Ein

rørleggar reparerte vask-en sjølv. plumber repaired sink-DEF self ‘A plumber repaired the sink himself.’ IDF.M.SG

104

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

nite correlate. In fact, regardless of the definiteness of the correlate the operator cannot be indefinite. The example in (3.55b) shows this. (3.55) a.

b.

SPANISH (Gutiérrez-Rexach 2003) Busc-aba a {una/la} mujer look.for-PAST.1SG ACC IDF.F.SG/DEF.F.SG woman [con la que me pudiera casar]. with DEF.F.SG that me could marry ‘I was looking for a/the woman that I could marry.’ Busc-aba look.for-PAST.1SG [con (*una) with IDF.F.SG

a

{una/la}

mujer woman pudiera casar]. could marry

ACC IDF.F.SG/DEF.F.SG

que me that me

We can conclude that the correlate and the relative operator need not agree in definiteness.8 8 Schmitt (2000) states the higher D can be definite only if the relative clause has finite tense.

In support of this claim she points to contrasts like the one seen in the following Spanish examples: (i)a.

Esta asociación ha encontrado (unos) temas this association has found IDF.PL themes ‘This association has founds (some) themes to discuss.’

b. * Esta this

asociación association

ha has

encontrado found

los DEF.PL

temas themes

que that

tratar. treat.INF

que that

tratar. treat.INF

However, the Norwegian construction in (ii) is rather similar to (ib), except that the relative complementiser in (ib) is apparently replaced by the infinitival marker in (ii). Nevertheless, (ii) is perfectly grammatical, and so is its English counterpart, shown in the translation. (ii)

Vi har funni sak-en å arbeid-e for. we have found cause-DEF to work-INF for ‘We have found the cause to work for.’

In addition, reduced relative clauses with participial verbs go with definite or indefinite correlates, in English and Norwegian: (iii)a. a/the girl sitting in the corner b. a/the room decorated with flowers (iv)a. eple dyrka i Norge apples grown in Norway ‘apples grown in Norway’

b. epla dyrka i Norge apples.DEF grown in Norway ‘the apples grown in Norway’

Thus, it seems that Schmitt’s generalisation is in need of some refinement.

DETERMINERS AND RELATIVE CLAUSES

105

If we turn to languages that have visible case marking on the relative operator as well as on the correlate, it is easy to show that the two need not agree in case either. In (3.56) I give two examples from North Sami. In (3.56a) the correlate has genitive case while the pronominal operator has nominative case, and in (3.56b) the correlate has accusative case while the pronominal operator has comitative case. That is, the correlate gets the case that corresponds to the position in the matrix clause that the relative clause construction is associated with, while the operator gets the case that corresponds to the position in the relative clause where the gap is found. (3.56) a.

b.

NORTH SAMI Divššohas galgá oažžu-t patient.NOM.SG shall.3SG get-INF dan veahki birra that.GEN.SG help.GEN.SG about ‘The patient must get information given.’

dieđu-id information.PL.ACC mii addo-juvv-o. what.NOM give-PASS-3SG about the treatment that is

Háliid-an giiti-t buohka-id geai-guin want-PRES.1SG thank-INF all-PL.ACC who-PL.COM barg-en ovttas. work-PAST.1SG together ‘I want to thank everyone who I cooperated with.’

If the correlate and the operator originate as one constituent, as Kayne (1994) and others assume, the different case marking of these two elements is not easily explained. But if the correlate and the operator are separate from the outset, it is expected that they should be case-marked independently of each other. Given the structures that I have proposed, the Sami pattern can be seen as the consequence of the correlate agreeing with the D that has the relative clause as its complement and the pronominal operator being related to the gap position inside the relative clause.9,10

9 The North Sami example in (3.56a) shows that if the relative construction combines with a

postposition, only the correlate will precede that postposition. The remainder of the relative construction will follow the postposition. There exists independent evidence, which I will not go into here, that postpositions in North Sami are ‘prepositions’ underlyingly, and that the DP P order is derived by movement of the DP. The example at hand then indicates that in the case of relative constructions combining with a P, the correlate moves out of the larger DP. I will not discuss further the complications involved in this. 10 In Old Norse, some relative clause constructions showed the same case properties as those seen in North Sami. The following example is from Åfarli (1995:537):

106

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

There are however indications that the correlate and the operator must agree in number. The following example, originally from Vergnaud (1974), shows that when a predicate is relativised, the result is ungrammatical if the subject of the relative clause has a different number setting from the correlate. (3.57) FRENCH (Vergnaud 1974, cited in Bianchi 1999:52) * Ce ne sont pas les comédiens que leur père it NEG are NEG DEF.PL comedians that their father était. was ‘*They are not the comedians that their father was.’

(i)

Í þorpi nokkuru er ein kurteis kona, til þeirrar er at small.farm some is a courteous woman.NOM to that.GEN RC Henrik konungr venr sínar ferðir. Henrik king accustoms REFL.POSS journeys ‘At a small farm is a courteous woman, to whom King Henrik often pays visits.’

As Åfarli (1995) points out, constructions of this type fit very well with an analysis where the correlate is outside the relative clause while the relative pronoun is the relative operator, which sits inside the relative clause and is related to the gap position. There was however also another case marking pattern to be found in Old Norse relative clause constructions. Instead of carrying the case associated with the gap position, the pronominal element located immediately after the correlate could share the case of the correlate. The following example, from Åfarli (1995:540), illustrates this. (ii)

Hann bió i firði þeim er Fibuli heitir. he lived in fjord.DAT that.DAT RC Fibuli is.named ‘He lived in the fjord that is named Fibuli.’

Here it is the subject of the relative clause that is relativised, but nevertheless the pronoun þeim has dative case, just like the correlate firði. The explanation that comes to mind is that þeim is not a realisation of the relative operator in this construction. Instead, it is a realisation of D. The operator is then phonologically empty, whereas the correlate is either in Spec-DP or outside the larger DP altogether (cf. fn. 9). The idea that þeim is in D in (ii) gets some support from the following facts. Firstly, a relative pronoun that agrees in case with the correlate will never appear inside a PP. In other words, the case pattern in (ii) is incompatible with pied-piping of the type seen in (i) (Åfarli 1995). Secondly, the pronoun in question is the very same element that shows up whenever D needs its own phonological realisation in contemporary colloquial Icelandic. Some examples of the latter were given in chapter 2, section 2.5. It is not totally inconceivable that the realisation of D in today’s Icelandic has roots that go back to Old Norse, and more specifically to constructions like (ii). Even more suggestive of such a connection is the fact that the pattern in (ii) is associated with a more colloquial style, while the pattern in (i) represents a more learned style (Åfarli 1995). This could mean that spelling out D in relative clause constructions is a younger phenomenon than spelling out the operator, in which case the link from the former pattern to present-day Icelandic seems quite likely.

107

DETERMINERS AND RELATIVE CLAUSES

Since the subject presumably agrees with the operator, it follows that the operator also has a different number setting from the correlate in (3.57). This is then likely to be the reason why the construction is ungrammatical. Relativised predicates in Scandinavian show exactly the same restriction on number agreement. If the correlate and the subject of the relative clause are both singular, as in (3.58a), or both plural, as in (3.58b), everything is fine, but if the two differ in number, as in (3.58c), ungrammaticality results. (3.58) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN Ho er ikkje den komikar-en som mor-a she is not DEF.SG comedian-DEF RC mother-DEF ‘She is not the comedian that her mother was.’

var. was

Dei er ikkje dei komikar-a-ne som foreldr-a they are not DEF.SG comedian-PL-DEF RC parent-PL.DEF var. were ‘They are not the comedians that their parents were.’

c. * Dei er ikkje dei komikar-a-ne som mor-a they are not DEF.SG comedian-PL-DEF RC mother-DEF var. was ‘*They are not the comedians that their mother was.’ Parallel to the French example in (3.57), I take the real problem with (3.58c) to be that the correlate does not agree in number with the relative operator. In other words, while these elements can differ in definiteness and case they must have the same number. This is not unexpected on my analysis of relative clause constructions, according to which the correlate and the relative operator are necessarily coindexed. The relation between them is then comparable to the relation between a pronoun and its antecedent. The pronoun can of course be different from its antecedent with respect to definiteness, case and other features that are not relevant for reference, but it will normally agree with its antecedent in number, in languages that make number distinctions in pronouns at all.11 3.5

Summary

11 The following exception, seen on a poster in San Francisco in March 2003, is apparently

motivated by a desire to avoid gender-specific terms: (i)

If you abuse your partner, you hurt THEM and yourself.

108

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

In those Scandinavian varieties where a prenominal determiner regularly shows up in definite nominal phrases containing adjectives or weak quantifiers—that is, in Danish, Faroese, Norwegian and Swedish—the very same prenominal determiner is also often used in absence of prenominal modifiers if the noun is followed by a restrictive relative clause. In other words, although there is some variation among speakers, a restrictive relative clause appears, somewhat unexpectedly, to be able to trigger the presence of a prenominal determiner. Moreover, if the (restrictive) relative clause construction lacks specific reference, the preposed determiner is obligatory. In this respect, restrictive relative clause constructions are different from nonrestrictive relative clause constructions in Scandinavian, as the presence of a nonrestrictive relative clause never has any effect on what other elements are found in the nominal phrase. In the previous chapter I argued that a prenominal determiner appears when there is no phonologically realised element in Spec-CP. If this is correct, restrictive relative clause constructions and nonrestrictive relative clause constructions in Scandinavian differ in their overt syntax, and not only in their covert syntax, as Kayne (1994) would have it. My proposal, which can explain the distribution of prenominal determiners as well as the fact that a prenominal modifier can take scope over a restrictive relative clause but not over a nonrestrictive relative clause, is that in nonrestrictive relative clause constructions, the correlate is a full DP generated in the highest Spec of the relative clause. This DP moves to the Spec of a DP projection that takes the relative clause as its complement. In restrictive relative clause constructions, the correlate, which also in these cases is generated in the highest Spec of the relative clause, is an nP. The relative clause itself takes the position that the correlate nP would otherwise appear in. That is, the relative clause is the complement of α if adjectives are involved, but the complement of D if there are no prenominal modifiers targeting the restrictive correlate. In the former case, movement of the correlate nP to Spec-DP is blocked, as expected, and in the latter case, it is parameterised, except that it never occurs if n does not encode specificity. Another important feature of my model is that the relative correlate is taken to be separate from the relative operator. While the relative correlate is generated in the highest Spec of the relative clause, the relative operator is directly related to the gap in the relative clause—presumably, it has moved from the position where the gap occurs in the surface order to a position at the left periphery of the relative clause. A welcome consequence of the separation of these two elements is that it allows the correlate and the operator to differ in definiteness and in case, which they also often do. However, since they are necessarily coindexed, the correlate and the operator cannot differ in number or, by hypothesis, in any other feature that is relevant to their reference.

CHAPTER 4 DEMONSTRATIVES AND STRONG QUANTIFIERS

4.1 Introduction This chapter deals with the syntax of demonstratives and strong quantifiers, that is, with those elements of the nominal phrase elements that I take to be generated above DP. I begin with a discussion of demonstratives in 4.2. After that, in 4.3, I show that personal pronouns sometimes function as demonstratives in Scandinavian, and also sometimes as determiners. The topic of 4.4 is strong quantifiers, while a brief summary in 4.5 rounds off the chapter. 4.2 Demonstratives The topics covered in this section are the syntactic position of demonstratives, the features of demonstratives, the co-occurrence of demonstratives and suffixed articles, and morphologically complex demonstratives. 4.2.1 The position of demonstratives In the discussion of Northern Swedish, in chapter 2, section 2.6, I proposed that the demonstrative heads a projection DemP immediately above DP. This is arguably also true for other varieties of Scandinavian. Notably, in Danish, Norwegian and Swedish, a demonstrative can co-occur with a prenominal determiner, in particular in the context of a superlative adjective. As (4.1) shows, the demonstrative then precedes the determiner (see also Delsing 1993:138 on Swedish). I conclude again that the demonstrative is generated above D. (4.1)

NORWEGIAN desse dei to eld-st-e hus-a i by-en these DEF.PL two old-SUP-DEF house-DEF.PL in town-DEF ‘these two oldest houses in town’

This conclusion is in accordance with the proposal in Cinque (2000), for example, but it goes against much earlier work on demonstratives.1 Giusti (1991) suggested that since demonstratives are often in complementary distri1 Delsing (1993) also suggests that the demonstrative takes a DP complement. The details of

his analysis are different from what I am proposing, though.

110

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

bution with determiners, they are in Spec-DP. Then Brugè (1994) proposed that demonstratives are generated in a much lower Spec inside the DP, in fact below all adjectives. The proposal was based on constructions like (4.2a), where a demonstrative appears between the adjective and the complement of the noun. This order was taken to be the result of a movement operation that places the noun in front of the adjective. The order in (4.2b) would be derived if the noun carried along its complement, while for (4.2c) the assumption is that the demonstrative has moved to Spec-DP. (4.2) a.

b.

SPANISH la reacción alemana es-a a las DEF.F.SG reaction German this-F.SG to DEF.F.PL ‘this German reaction to the criticisms’ el DEF.M.SG ‘THAT math

c.

críticas criticismsF

libro de matemáticas es-e bookM of maths that-M.SG book’

es-e libro de matemáticas that-M.SG bookM of maths ‘that math book’

Brugè’s analysis has been quite influential. It has even been adopted for Scandinavian, by Holmberg & Sandström (1996b) and Vangsnes (1999). Holmberg & Sandström (1996b) propose that the demonstrative in Northern Swedish is located below D, and that constructions like those in (4.3) are formed by moving the noun to D, across the demonstrative, and leaving the PP behind. (4.3) a.

b.

NORTHERN SWEDISH (Holmberg & Sandström 1996b) bror-n dänna åt n Erik brother-DEF.M.SG that to M.SG Erik ‘that brother of Erik’s’ bok-a jänna book-DEF.F.SG this ‘this book about Jeltsin’

om about

Jeltsin Jeltsin

However, I think that an alternative interpretation is possible. The analysis I have in mind was sketched in the discussion of the Irish examples in chapter 2, section 2.7, where the demonstrative immediately precedes the PP that is the last constituent of the nominal phrase. Basing my proposal on Cinque (2000), I suggested that DemP is immediately above DP, and that DP has moved to

DEMONSTRATIVES AND STRONG QUANTIFIERS

111

Spec-DemP in the cases where the demonstrative follows the determiner and the noun. The PP must then have been extracted from the DP before the DP was fronted, along the lines proposed in the same section for corresponding PPs in Danish. If an analysis along these lines is tenable for Irish, a language which Giusti (1997) points to as providing evidence for Brugè’s analysis, it should also be applicable to constructions like (4.2a), (4.3a) and (4.3b). In (4.2c), it appears that the PP has moved along with the DP. The claim that demonstratives are generated above DP is further supported by the following contrast found in Scandinavian. Although some dialects can have a prenominal possessor followed by a prenominal determiner, such as Lappträsk Swedish, a dialect of Swedish spoken in Finland and shown in (4.4), in most varieties a prenominal possessor cannot co-occur with a prenominal determiner at all. The Norwegian example in (4.5a) illustrates this. However, even in those varieties, a prenominal possessor can be preceded by a demonstrative, as in (4.5b). (4.4)

LAPPTRÄSK SWEDISH (Vangsnes 1999:157) mett te stór hús-e my.N.SG DEF.SG big house-DEF ‘my big house’

(4.5) a.

NORWEGIAN (BOKMÅL) (*den) min (*den) DEF.SG my.M.SG DEF.SG

b.

ny-est-e artikkel new-SUP-DEF article

denne min ny-est-e artikkel this my.M.SG new-SUP-DEF article ‘this newest article of mine’

This suggests that demonstratives and determiners do not compete for the same structural position. Instead, the facts follow if prenominal possessors are in Spec-DP (see chapter 6) and demonstratives are generated above D. In (4.5a), the possessor, which agrees with D, gives D an identification, so that the D head is not spelled out. It is then expected that D should not be spelled out in (4.5b) either, where there is a possessor in Spec-DP and a demonstrative in Dem, each of them able to identify D. But the demonstrative and the possessor will both be spelled out, since each of them has semantic content that the other does not share. Admittedly, on the analysis where Dem is generated below D, the fact that there is no determiner in D when the demonstrative is in initial position, as in (4.2b), gets a simple explanation: since Dem has moved to the DP projection in

112

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

these cases, D need not be spelled out. But if Dem is generated above D, as I am claiming, we must look for a different explanation. 4.2.2 The features of demonstratives In the discussion of Northern Swedish I argued that since the demonstrative in this variety carries none of the features that are associated with D, D must be spelled out even when a demonstrative is present. But in Spanish, we see that demonstratives overtly share the features of D: they show gender and number distinctions, and in addition, they are definite. Hence, in a construction like (4.2b), D is c-commanded by an element that has all the features that are relevant to D, and moreover, the relation between D and this element is local; in particular, there is no intervening element. My proposal is therefore that in such cases, the demonstrative fixes the reference of D and also supplies the highest projection with a nominal category feature. Consequently, D need not be spelled out. In (4.2c), by contrast, the whole DP has moved to Spec-DemP, so that Dem no longer c-commands D, and D must be spelled out in order to be identified. In the standard varieties of Scandinavian, demonstratives clearly also have nominal features. A demonstrative can be the only overt element of an argumental phrase, as illustrated by the Norwegian example in (4.6). (4.6)

NORWEGIAN Eg ta-r denne. I take-PRES this.M/F.SG ‘I take this one.’

Hence, it is expected that the prenominal determiner can be absent in the presence of demonstratives also in Norwegian and most other varieties of Scandinavian. 4.2.3 Demonstratives and suffixed articles Another important issue concerning demonstratives in Scandinavian has to do with the suffixed definite article. As we see from (4.7), a demonstrative cooccurs with the suffixed article in the ‘double definiteness’ languages Faroese, Norwegian and Swedish, although it normally does not co-occur with a preposed definite determiner.2

2 In written Swedish, a noun following the proximal demonstrative denna will often lack a

suffixed definite article. However, it appears that this is due to a convention imposed on the formal register and not a consequence of grammar (see Delsing 1993:137). Hence, I take the grammar of Swedish to be like the grammar of Faroese and Norwegian in this respect.

DEMONSTRATIVES AND STRONG QUANTIFIERS

(4.7) a.

b.

c.

113

Demonstratives in the ‘double definiteness’ varieties of Scandinavian FAROESE hesin (svart-i) hestur-in this.M.SG.NOM black-DEF.M.SG.NOM horse-DEF.M.SG.NOM ‘this black horse’ NORWEGIAN denne (svart-e) this black-DEF ‘this black horse’

hest-en horse-DEF.M.SG

SWEDISH denna (svart-a) this black-DEF ‘this black horse’

häst-en horse-DEF.M.SG

The patterns shown in (4.7) are exactly as we would expect if a demonstrative can fix the reference of D, as I have just proposed. In the presence of a demonstrative, the DP projection can then be phonologically empty, and consequently, no prenominal determiner is necessary, regardless of whether there is a prenominal modifier or not. The definite n head is however spelled out as a suffixed definite article, just as it is (in these varieties) in definite DPs not preceded by demonstratives. In Danish, the presence of a demonstrative precludes the presence of a suffixed definiteness marker, as (4.8a) shows. The example in (4.8b) shows that it is also impossible to spell out D without moving nP. However, we see from the examples in (4.8c) and (4.8d) that it is in fact possible to spell out D when it is preceded by a demonstrative as long as there is an adjective following D. (The same was shown for Norwegian, by the way, in (4.1).) (4.8) a.

DANISH dette hus(*-et) this.N house-DEF.N.SG ‘this house’

b.

dette (*det) this.N DEF.N.SG ‘this house’

hus house

c.

dette (det) høj-e this.N DEF.N.SG high-DEF ‘this tall house’

hus house

114

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

d.

dette (det) høj-est-e hus this.N DEF.N.SG tall-SUP-DEF house ‘this the tallest house in town’

i by-en in town-DEF.CG.SG

A possible explanation of these facts is that D attracts nP also when there is a demonstrative in front of D, as in (4.8a). With an nP in Spec-DP and a demonstrative above DP, D itself cannot be spelled out, presumably because all the requirements of D are satisfied locally anyway. But when nP-raising is blocked by the presence of prenominal modifiers, D can be spelled out, although it is not strictly necessary since D’s features will also be seen on the demonstrative. In Icelandic, the proximal demonstrative þessi “this” does not co-occur with a suffixed definiteness marker—see (4.9a), it blocks αP-fronting—see (4.9b), and combining þessi with a prenominal determiner leads to hopeless ungrammaticality, as demonstrated in (4.9c). The distal demonstrative sá “that” is similar to þessi in these respects (Sigurðsson 1993). (4.9) a.

ICELANDIC þess-ir fimm ny´ ju these-M.PL.NOM five new-DEF.PL ‘these five new students’

b. * þess-ir ny´ ju these-M.PL.NOM new-DEF.PL

stúdent-ar(*-nir) student-M.PL.NOM-DEF

stúdent-ar fimm student-M.PL.NOM five

c. * þess-i hin tvö elstu these-N.PL.NOM DEF two oldest

hús í bæ-num house(PL) in town-DEF

Again, we have an indication that the definiteness features in Icelandic are in a sense stronger than their counterparts in other Scandinavian varieties, so that a visible definite D, a visible definite n, or a demonstrative, which is also definite and case-marked, cannot co-occur. There is also a third element which is normally taken to be a demonstrative in Icelandic. This element is hinn, the element that was seen in its function as a prenominal determiner in chapter 2, section 2.5. The demonstrative hinn, which means “the other”, is almost identical to the determiner hinn, except that in the neuter singular, the determiner is hið whereas the demonstrative is hitt. This is illustrated in (4.10). (4.10) a.

ICELANDIC hið gaml-a hús N.SG.NOM old-DEF house ‘the old house’

DEMONSTRATIVES AND STRONG QUANTIFIERS

b.

115

hi-tt gaml-a hús-ið other-N.SG.NOM old-DEF house-DEF.N.SG.NOM ‘the other old house’

We see here that unlike the other Icelandic demonstratives, hinn co-occurs with a suffixed definiteness marker. It also allows αP-fronting, as (4.11) shows. (4.11) a.

b.

ICELANDIC hin-ir fimm ny´ ju other-M.PL five new-DEF.PL ‘the other five new students’

stúdent-ar-nir student-PL-DEF

hin-ir ny´ ju stúdent-ar-nir other-M.PL new-DEF.PL student-PL-DEF ‘the other five new students’

fimm five

The possibility of αP-fronting below the demonstrative hinn is a clear indication that the demonstrative hinn is not in D. It must be higher up, in Dem. Concerning the contrast between þessi/sá on the one hand and hinn on the other, I have the following proposal to offer. Suppose that þessi and sá incorporate the D head, so that these demonstratives are like the Northern Swedish morphologically complex dem-därna structurally (see chapter 2, section 2.6).3 This means that the definiteness feature of D is spelled out by þessi and sá. It then follows that n cannot be spelled out when þessi and sá are present, and there will also be no need to move αP to Spec-DP. The syntactic properties of the demonstrative hinn, by contrast, suggest that this element does not incorporate D, although it can apparently specify the reference of the DP, so that the DP projection can be empty following hinn. (The determiner hinn spells out D, so that is a different story altogether.) It then follows, on the present assumptions, that the definite n must itself be spelled out when the demonstrative hinn is present, since there must be some realisation of the definiteness feature shared by D and n. Moreover, the possibility of αPfronting following hinn suggests that αP can move to Spec-DP if the D head has not raised to Dem, as in (4.11b). But since the highest projection of the nominal phrase is in any case nominal when a demonstrative is present, αPmovement can be dispensed with even after the demonstrative hinn, as in (4.11a).

3 Cf. the suggestion in Chomsky (1995:338) that this and that are formed from the determiner

the plus a demonstrative element.

116

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

4.2.4 Morphologically complex demonstratives In Swedish and Norwegian, demonstratives can be morphologically complex. More precisely, the elements that stand alone as demonstratives in the more formal language often appear with elements meaning here and there in the colloquial language, so that we get a pattern that looks very similar to the Northern Swedish dem-derna (see chapter 2, section 2.6).4 Below, I give some Swedish examples in (4.12) and some Norwegian examples in (4.13). (4.12) a.

b.

COLLOQUIAL SWEDISH den här(a) (gaml-a) DEF.CG.SG here old-DEF ‘this (old) boat’ den

båt-en boat-DEF.CG.SG

där(a) there ‘that (old) boat’

(gaml-a) old-DEF

båt-en boat-DEF.CG.SG

c.

dom här(%-a) DEF.PL here ‘these (old) boats’

(gaml-a) old-DEF

båt-ar-na boat-PL-DEF

d.

dom där(%-a) DEF.PL there ‘those (old) boats’

(gaml-a) old-DEF

båt-ar-na boat-PL-DEF

DEF.CG.SG

(4.13) a.

b.

COLLOQUIAL NORWEGIAN {den/denne} her(re) (gaml-e) that/this here old-DEF ‘this (old) boat’ {den/denne} der(re) (gaml-e) that/this there old-DEF ‘that (old) boat’

båt-en boat-DEF.M.SG

båt-en boat-DEF.M.SG

4 In colloquial Norwegian and Swedish, der(re) “there” is also often added to the deictic adjec-

tive/adverb sånn, as in the following Norwegian example: (i)

ein IDF.M.SG

sånn der(re) such there

Discman Discman

On its own, sånn means “such, like this/that”. However, in the usage shown here sånn does not point to anything in particular. The meaning of (i) is roughly ‘a Discman—you know what I mean’.

DEMONSTRATIVES AND STRONG QUANTIFIERS

c.

{dei/desse} her(re) (gaml-e) those/these here old-DEF ‘these (old) boats’

båt-a-ne boat-PL-DEF

d.

{dei/desse} der(re) (gaml-e) those/these there old-DEF ‘those (old) boats’

båt-a-ne boat-PL-DEF

117

Note that it is evidently the adverbial part of the complex demonstrative that carries the deictic force. In Swedish, the first element in a complex demonstrative is always formally identical to a distant demonstrative, while in Norwegian, it does not matter for the interpretation whether the first element is the otherwise proximate denne or the otherwise distant den. The function of these elements in the complex demonstrative must be to supply the nominal feature. However, the complex demonstratives shown above do not seem to be the result of moving D to Dem, since they can be followed by a prenominal determiner, as in (4.14). (4.14)

COLLOQUIAL SWEDISH den där den fin-ast-e båt-en that there DEF.CG.SG fine-SUP-DEF boat-DEF ‘that finest boat in the harbour’

i hamn-en in port-DEF

Hence, unlike what I argued for Northern Swedish in chapter 2, section 2.6, I take the complex demonstratives in other Swedish varieties and in Norwegian to be base-generated as such by combining a pronoun-like element with a deictic, adverb-like element and then merging the resulting complex in Dem.5,6 The construction illustrated in (4.15) seems to cast doubt on this proposal, if one takes it to show that a complex demonstrative can be split up such that the pronoun-like part is the first element of the nominal phrase while the adverblike part comes at the end. (4.15) a.

SWEDISH den (gaml-a) DEF.CG.SG old-DEF ‘the (old) boat here’

båt-en boat-DEF

här here

5 Börjars (1998) also analyses den där as a complex lexical item. 6 Afrikaans has the complex demonstratives hierdie and daardie, with the two elements in the

opposite order of what we see in Scandinavian (see Donaldson 1993).

118

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

b.

den

(gaml-a) old-DEF ‘the (old) boat there’ DEF.CG.SG

båt-en boat-DEF

där there

But note that in (4.15a) and (4.15b) the final elements här “here” and där “there” must appear in exactly these forms, which are identical to the form they have when they are used as ordinary adverbs. In the complex demonstratives in (4.12), by contrast, a suffix –a, which could probably be seen as an agreement marker, can be added to här and där in the colloquial language (but for some speakers this is better in the singular than in the plural). A corresponding suffix –(re) is found in colloquial Norwegian.7 Hence, the constructions in (4.15) appear to be parallel to the English translations I have given, with the adverbs meaning “here” and “there” in a position where a locative PP could otherwise appear.8 It should be added here that neither the constructions in (4.15) nor their Norwegian counterparts have the colloquial flavour that the constructions in (4.12) and (4.13) have. This fact also indicates that the two construction types are entirely different. 4.3 Pronouns, demonstratives and determiners In Scandinavian, there are certain similarities between prenominal determiners, demonstratives and personal pronouns. In the following, I first look at the relation between demonstratives and determiners, then at the relation between determiners and personal pronouns, and finally, at the relation between personal pronouns and demonstratives. 4.3.1 Demonstratives and determiners As I have mentioned earlier, prenominal determiners are formally identical to demonstratives in Scandinavian. In Danish, Faroese, Norwegian and Swedish, they are identical to the distal demonstrative, and in Icelandic, the prenominal determiner sá is identical to the distal demonstrative, while the prenominal determiner hinn is very similar to the demonstrative meaning “(the) other”. Some examples with hinn were shown in the preceding section, so I will not repeat them here. Below, I show instead the two uses of sá in (4.16). In (4.17) I give a Danish example, which also is representative of Norwegian and Swedish as far as the demonstrative/determiner element is concerned—the only differ-

7 Even longer forms are possible in very colloquial speech. In Norwegian, we find forms like

den derre-der, and in Swedish, den häringa/däringa, den härade/därade and den häringade/ däringade can be heard. 8 Delsing (1993) and Börjars (1998) reach the same conclusion in this matter. Börjars also points out that constructions like those in (4.15) sound strange if the head noun is an abstract that cannot plausibly be located in space. I completely agree, and I take this fact to mean that we really have location adverbs in final position in (4.15a) and (4.15b).

DEMONSTRATIVES AND STRONG QUANTIFIERS

119

ence being that in Norwegian and Swedish, the noun would have a suffixed definite article. A Faroese example then completes the picture. (4.16) a.

b.

ICELANDIC sá that.M.SG.NOM ‘that man’ sá DEF.M.SG.NOM

maður man.SG.NOM

græn-i green-M.SG.NOM

‘the green one’ (4.17)

DANISH den gaml-e hest that.CG/DEF.CG.SG old-DEF horse ‘that/the old horse’

(4.18)

Faroese tann svart-i kettlingur-in DEF.M.SG.NOM black-DEF.M.SG.NOM kitten-DEF.M.SG.NOM ‘that/the black kitten’

In expressions like (4.17) and (4.18), the intonation pattern and the context can tell whether the first element is a demonstrative or a determiner, but its morphological form will not. I take the morphological identity between determiners and distal demonstratives in Scandinavian to be a case of historically conditioned homonymy. That is, I assume that the vocabulary items in question can appear in D, where they get interpreted as determiners without any deictic force, or they can appear in Dem, where their meaning is that of a distal demonstrative. 4.3.2 Determiners and personal pronouns In Danish, Swedish and Norwegian the prenominal determiners are also often similar to (nonhuman) third person personal pronouns, as the Swedish examples in (4.19) illustrate. (4.19) a.

SWEDISH Den första etapp-en blir DEF.CG.SG first stage-DEF.CG.SG becomes jul. Christmas ‘The first stage will be finished by Christmas.’

klar till finished to

120

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

b.

Den blir klar till jul. it.CG becomes finished to Christmas ‘It will be finished by Christmas.’

There are certain exceptions to this generalisation, however. For example, in Danish, in written Swedish and in Bokmål Norwegian, nominative plural is different from non-nominative plural in the pronoun but not in the prenominal determiner. The Swedish examples in (4.20) illustrate the latter point. In (4.20a) and (4.20b), we see that the plural prenominal determiner is de in all positions. In (4.20c) and (4.20d) we see that the third person plural personal pronoun is de in the nominative but dem elsewhere. Note, by the way, that just like in English, there is no human/nonhuman distinction in the plural of personal pronouns in Scandinavian, so that can be ignored here. (4.20) a.

SWEDISH De stark-a rysk-or-na slog henne. DEF.PL strong-DEF russian-PL-DEF beat.PAST her ‘The strong Russian women9 beat her.’

b.

Hon slog-s av de stark-a rysk-or-na. she beat.PAST-PASS by DEF.PL strong-DEF russian-PL-DEF ‘She was beaten by the strong Russian women.’

c.

De slog henne. they beat.PAST her ‘They beat her.’

d.

Hon slog-s av she beat.PAST-PASS by ‘She was beaten by them.’

dem. them

The spoken language often patterns differently, though. In many varieties of spoken Swedish we would get dom in all the examples above, whereas in many Norwegian dialects the plural of the personal pronoun is always different from the plural of the prenominal determiner. The Tromsø dialect provides an example:

9 In the singular, ryska means either “Russian language” or “Russian female”. That the refer-

ence here is to Russian women is indicated by the presence of the plural marker.

DEMONSTRATIVES AND STRONG QUANTIFIERS

(4.21) a.

TROMSØ NORWEGIAN Di ny-e student-an DEF.PL new-DEF student-DEF.PL ‘The new students are here.’

b.

Æ så di ny-e I saw DEF.PL new-DEF ‘I saw the new students.’

c.

Dæm e hær. they are here ‘They are here.’

e are

121

hær. here

student-an. student-DEF.PL

d.

Æ så dæm. I saw them ‘I saw them.’

We see that in this dialect, the plural of the prenominal determiner is an invariant di, while the plural of the personal pronoun is an invariant dæm. This is interesting, because it solves a problem that repeatedly comes up in normative works on Norwegian. In Bokmål Norwegian, where the third person personal pronoun is de in the nominative but dem elsewhere, the form de is often seen in positions where dem would apparently be expected.10 Two examples are given in (4.22). In (4.22a), either de or dem can appear in object position, and in (4.22b), either de or dem can follow the preposition til “to”. Language pundits with a normative inclination nevertheless unanimously condemn the use of de in such cases, maintaining that after a preposition or in object position only dem is acceptable. (4.22) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN (BOKMÅL) Mange støttet {de/dem} som streiket. many supported they?/them RC striked ‘Many people supported those who were on strike.’ Dette er et tilbud til {de/dem} this is an offer to they?/them ‘This is an offer for those with glasses.’

med briller. with glasses

This conclusion seems correct if we compare (4.22) to (4.23), where the first person plural personal pronoun has replaced de/dem. We see that the nonnominative form oss “us” is acceptable in object position and after a preposition, but not the nominative form vi “we”.

10 In Nynorsk, the third person plural personal pronoun as well as the plural determiner is dei

in all environments.

122

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

(4.23) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN (BOKMÅL) Mange støttet {*vi/OKoss} som streiket. many supported we/us RC striked ‘Many people supported us who were on strike.’ Dette er et tilbud til {*vi/OKoss} med briller. this is an offer to we/us with glasses ‘This is an offer for us who wear glasses.’

Now note that in (4.22a) a relative clause follows de/dem, and in (4.22b) a PP. These constructions are typical representatives of cases where dem alternates more or less freely with de. If we now go back to the Tromsø dialect, we will see that in this dialect, as in other Norwegian dialects that have a sharp formal distinction between the plural of the personal pronoun and the plural of the prenominal determiner but no case distinction on the former, an interesting pattern shows up in the constructions under discussion. As we see in (4.24), these dialects allow either of the elements just mentioned to combine with a PP or a relative clause. (4.24) a.

b.

TROMSØ NORWEGIAN Dette e et tilbud te {di/dæm} med brilla. this is an offer to DEF.PL/them with glasses ‘This is an offer for those with glasses.’ Mange støtta {di/dæm} som streika. many supported DEF.PL/them RC striked ‘Many people supported those who were on strike.’

In other words, a PP or a relative clause can combine with a pronoun, which is realised as dæm in (4.24ab), or with a phonologically empty noun and a prenominal determiner, the latter being realised as di in (4.24ab). If we now apply the same reasoning to (4.22a) and (4.22b), the conclusion is that when Norwegians tend to use de here as an alternative to dem, it is not because they do not uphold the distinction between nominative and non-nominative forms of personal pronouns, but because the element in front of the PP or the relative clause can be a pronoun or a determiner. In the first case, it will be spelled out as dem, and in the latter case, it will be spelled out as de.11 Hence, the use of de here is perfectly consistent with the grammar that most speakers of Norwegian can be shown to possess (see Julien 2003). As for the difference between the determiner and the pronoun, one could say that while the deter11 Since the publishing of Julien (2003), it has come to my knowledge that the same analysis

was proposed in Faarlund (1998).

123

DEMONSTRATIVES AND STRONG QUANTIFIERS

miner consists of one single element, the pronoun is syntactically complex, consisting of a D element and an element carrying Case. The latter could be taken to correspond to the γ of Cardinaletti & Starke (1995). 4.3.3 Personal pronouns and demonstratives In colloquial varieties of the Scandinavian languages there is also a close relation between HUMAN personal pronouns and demonstratives. In particular, the personal pronouns ‘she’ and ‘he’ can be used in contexts where they are best analysed as demonstratives. I give examples from Danish in (4.25), from Icelandic in (4.26), and from Norwegian in (4.27). (4.25) a.

b.

(4.26) a.

b.

(4.27) a.

b.

COLLOQUIAL DANISH Hende pige-n, hun sidd-er der-ovre. her girl-DEF she sit-PRES there-over ‘That girl, she is sitting over there.’ Hende (der) Marie (der), her there Marie there ‘That Marie, I know her.’ COLLOQUIAL ICELANDIC hann strákur-inn he.NOM boy-DEF.M.SG.NOM ‘that boy of theirs’

hende her

kend-er know-PRES

jeg. I

þeirra their

hún aumingj-a stelpa-n þarna she.NOM poor-DEF girl-DEF.F.SG.NOM there ‘that poor girl there’ COLLOQUIAL NORWEGIAN Eg snakka med ho jent-a. I spoke with she girl-DEF.F.SG ‘I spoke with that girl.’ Eg snakka med ho I spoke with she ‘I spoke with that girl.’

der(re) jent-a. there girl-DEF.F.SG

In (4.25a), in (4.26a), and in (4.27a), the pronoun precedes a definite noun with no prenominal modifier and no following relative clause. This is a syntactic frame where otherwise only demonstratives appear, which suggests that the

124

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

pronoun serves as a demonstrative here.12 A parallel reasoning goes through for (4.25b) and (4.26b): a prenominal determiner would not appear in these frames, but a demonstrative could. In each case, the pronoun also appears to be semantically equivalent to a demonstrative, and, moreover, it behaves like a demonstrative as far as morphological case is concerned.13 In Danish, for example, the third person singular feminine personal pronoun has the nominative form hun and the non-nominative form hende. Still, we get hende pigen and not *hun pigen in (4.25a). But when the pronoun stands alone in subject position, its form must be hun. In Norwegian and Swedish, on the other hand, we get the nominative form of the pronoun when it forms a phrase with a definite noun, even if this phrase is an object, as in (4.27a). This example should be compared to (4.28), where the non-nominative form henne “her” is obligatory.14 (4.28)

NORWEGIAN Eg snakka med henne. I spoke with her ‘I spoke with her.’

But interestingly, demonstratives show no case distinctions in the languages just mentioned. Hence, the absence of case distinctions in pronouns that com12 Note that this pronoun is different from the so-called proprial articles, which are pronominal

elements that combine with proper names in many Scandinavian varieties (see fn. 3, chapter 3), and in many languages outside of Scandinavian. For one thing, the demonstrative pronoun combines with common nouns as well as with proper names. For another, it can be formally different from the proprial article. This is the case in Solør Norwegian, for example, where the demonstrative pronoun has a strong pronominal form—see (ia)—while the proprial article has a weak pronominal form—see (ib). (i)a.

Je traff ho (herre) Kari. b. Je traff a Kari I met she here Kari I met she Kari ‘I met this Kari.’ ‘I met Kari.’ 13 Delsing (2003b) states that in Swedish, expressions like hon Lisa “she Lisa” are used when the speaker is uncertain whether the listener knows who the referent is. As far as I can see, this compatible with my claim that the pronoun has deictic content in such cases. See also Svensson (2003) on the use of ordinary determiners with proper names. 14 In spoken Norwegian there is considerable variation as to which formal case distinctions are retained in personal pronouns. I know of no dialect or variety that does not distinguish the nominative from the non-nominative in the first person singular, but for all other person/number combinations, there are varieties where the nominative and the non-nominative have been collapsed morphologically. Thus, in some varieties (for example, in the north) the third person singular feminine pronoun is an invariant ho, while in other varieties (for example, the traditional working class dialect of Oslo) it is an invariant henne(r). The examples given here are based on those varieties (as it happens, including my own) that have a case distinction in the third person singular feminine pronoun. Since the non-nominative form is obligatory in (4.28) in such varieties, it is clear that contrary to what Josefsson (1999) suggests, the occurrence of the nominative form in (4.27a) is not due to the colloquial style in itself.

DEMONSTRATIVES AND STRONG QUANTIFIERS

125

bine with definite nouns is compatible with the pronouns functioning as demonstratives. In Icelandic, on the other hand, demonstratives do inflect for case, and so do the pronouns in (4.26). It is also interesting that an element meaning ‘here’ or ‘there’ can be added after the pronoun, so that we get complex demonstratives exactly parallel to those shown in (4.12) and (4.13). Note in particular the possibility of adding derre, as shown in (4.27b). Derre does not combine with determiners, but it can appear in complex demonstratives, as we have seen. All these facts lead to the same conclusion: the prenominal pronouns in the examples above have the function of demonstratives. The generalisation is that HUMAN personal pronouns can be used as demonstratives when the referent is human. But as we see, when pronouns are used in this way, they allow the head noun to have a definiteness suffix even in Danish and Icelandic. That is, they have the same syntax as the Icelandic demonstrative hinn, for which I have suggested that it does not spell out the definiteness feature of D. In Norwegian and Swedish, pronouns with a demonstrative function have the same syntax as ordinary demonstratives. Turning now to the example in (4.29), it is less obvious whether ho is a demonstrative or a determiner here, since either a demonstrative or a determiner can appear in front of an attributive adjective in Norwegian. What we can tell for certain is that ho is not an ordinary personal pronoun in this case, since it does not have the morphological case that the pronoun has when in follows a preposition—see (4.28). (4.29)

NORWEGIAN Eg snakka med ho ny-e professor-en. I spoke with she new-DEF professor-DEF.M.SG ‘I spoke with the new (female) professor.’

We do not get much farther by comparing (4.29) to constructions like (4.30a), where ho combines with a PP, or to (4.30b), where ho combines with a relative clause, since in both these examples, ho could be replaced by a determiner, as in (4.22) and (4.24), or by a demonstrative, as shown in (4.31). In addition, ho in (4.30a) and (4.30b) could also be replaced by henne, the accusative form, as indicated. (4.30) a.

NORWEGIAN Spør {ho/henne} bak disk-en. ask she/her behind counter-DEF ‘Ask the female person behind the counter.’

126

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

b.

(4.31) a.

b.

Spør {ho/henne} som står der. ask she/her RC stands there ‘Ask the female person standing there.’ NORWEGIAN Spør desse bak disk-en. ask these behind counter-DEF ‘Ask these behind the counter.’ Spør desse som står her. ask these RC stand here ‘Ask these who are standing here.’

It should be noted, though, that the pronoun in (4.29) could not be preceded by a demonstrative, as (4.32) shows. (4.32) NORWEGIAN * Eg snakka med denne ho ny-e professor-en. I spoke with this she new-DEF professor-DEF.M.SG Intended meaning: ‘I spoke with this new (female) professor.’ This could be taken as an indication that the pronoun in (4.29) is itself in DemP. The Swedish counterpart of (4.29), shown in (4.33), points in the same direction (see Josefsson 1999). (4.33)

SWEDISH Jag talade med hon den ny-a I spoke with she DEF.CG.SG new-DEF professor-n. professor-DEF.CG.SG ‘I spoke with the new (female) professor.’

Here the initial pronoun is followed by a prenominal determiner. Hence, the pronoun cannot be in D; it must be located higher up, either in Spec-DP or in the DemP projection. Also note that the pronoun (ho/hon) does not agree with the grammatical gender of the head noun in (4.29) and (4.33). While the head noun is masculine in (4.29) and has common gender in (4.33), the pronoun is in each case FEMININE, and the professor in question must be a woman. And as Josefsson (1999) observes, these constructions are only possible when the nominal phrase as a whole has an animate referent, which has biological or semantic gender. Her conclusion, which seems correct, is that personal pronouns agree with the semantic gender of the referent when they appear above D—that is in DemP on

DEMONSTRATIVES AND STRONG QUANTIFIERS

127

my analysis.15 Ordinary demonstratives and determiners, on the other hand, agree with the grammatical gender of the head noun. Concerning the syntactic position of personal pronouns when they are not used as demonstratives, Josefsson (1999) suggests that ANIMATE pronouns are always in the higher position, that is in the projection that I refer to as DemP.16 If this is true, the absence of case distinctions on Mainland Scandinavian third person pronouns with a nominal complement needs to be explained, since, with some variation, they do have case when they appear without a complement. Alternatively, we could assume that case-marked personal pronouns are located in DP, which is a possibility that Josefsson mentions with reference to Icelandic. Regardless of whether personal pronouns are in DP or in DemP, it follows that they are able to precede adjectives, as in (4.34a) and (4.34c). In these examples, the opposite order is strictly ungrammatical—see (4.34b) and (4.34d). (4.34) a.

NORWEGIAN til han vesle (på sykkel-en) to he/him little.DEF.SG on bike-DEF ‘to the little guy (on the bike)’

b. * til (den) to DEF.SG c.

vesle han (på little.DEF.SG he on

sykkel-en) bike-DEF

til oss gaml-e (med briller) to us old-DEF with glasses ‘to us old people (with glasses)’

d. * til (dei) gaml-e oss to DEF.PL old-DEF us

(med briller) with glasses

However, having an adjective in front of a personal pronoun is not always excluded. It is acceptable in the following examples:

15 Josefsson (1999, to appear) suggests the term SemP for the projection above DP that hosts

pronouns in constructions like (4.33). However, she also points out that elements in this projection are speaker-oriented, which is fully compatible with the projection being DemP. 16 Lyons (1999) also observes that personal pronouns often have more in common with demonstratives than with determiners. He proposes that strong personal pronouns are Dem elements, while weak personal pronouns are D elements (although he does not relate this to a structural contrast).

128

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

(4.35) a.

NORWEGIAN dumm-e meg silly-DEF me ‘silly me’

b.

den

ny-e new-DEF ‘the new you’ DEF.SG

deg you

The example in (4.35a) can be used as an exclamation, but it can also be an argument. In either case, the adjective gets a non-restrictive reading, and the absence of a preposed determiner must be connected to this. In (4.35b) the adjective has a restrictive reading, and the preposed determiner is obligatory. In both examples, the pronoun is most likely merged below the adjective. Hence, it appears that we should allow for pronouns to be merged where nouns normally appear, as an alternative to being inserted in DP or DemP.17 As for the question of case, a first person pronoun obligatorily carries overt case in most varieties of Scandinavian (the exception is certain Norwegian dialects that show no distinction in the first person plural). I have already suggested that this is due to the pronoun being syntactically complex. It is possible that all strong pronouns in Scandinavian are complex heads syntactically, even those pronouns where the formal distinction between nominative and nonnominative has been erased. But the complexity of the pronoun does not seem to result from the combination of the pronominal head and a lower head, as Déchaine & Wiltschko (2002) propose. In Icelandic, case is a property of every element inside the nominal phrase, as we have seen, and not dependent on any particular head. I therefore take case-marked pronouns to be base-generated as complex heads.18 There are indications that when the pronoun is not in N, it nevertheless comes with an NP or in fact with a full DP structure, including an nP which can be overt or covert. The N-Num-n complex is then covert in examples like (4.30a) and (4.30b), in (4.34a) and (4.34c), and when a (strong) pronoun appears on its own, as in (4.28). It is however spelled out in the examples in (4.25ab), (4.26ab), (4.27ab), (4.29), (4.33) and also in (4.35) below.

17 See Franks & Pereltsvaig (2003) for similar arguments from Russian. 18 Josefsson (1999) assumes that first and second person pronouns do not involve a DP pro-

jection, since if they combine with a noun, that noun cannot have a suffixed definiteness marker (Swedish examples): (i)a.

vi student-er we student-PL

b. * vi student-er-na we student-PL-DEF

However, on my analysis the suffixed definiteness marker in (ib) is a realisation of n, not of D. The reason why it is excluded here can therefore not be absence of D. Also note that in the non-nominative, the suffix can appear, at least in Norwegian—see (4.36).

DEMONSTRATIVES AND STRONG QUANTIFIERS

(4.36)

129

NORWEGIAN til oss (to) (gaml-e) professor-a-ne to us two old-DEF professor-PL-DEF ‘to us (two) (old) professors’

It seems that demonstratives are like pronouns in that they always come with a full DP structure, where the elements below the demonstrative itself can be overt or covert. In (4.4) we saw an example where only the demonstrative was spelled out. In (4.7), and in several other examples above, the head noun and one or more modifiers are spelled out in addition to the demonstrative. Finally, in (4.31), and also in (4.37) below, we have a situation where the demonstrative and a modifier of the noun are spelled out while the noun itself is phonologically empty. (4.37)

NORWEGIAN desse ny-e these new-DEF ‘these new ones’

This concludes my discussion of the relation between pronouns, determiners and demonstratives. 4.4 Strong quantifiers It is well known that quantifiers come in at least two main types: weak (or indefinite) quantifiers and strong (or definite) quantifiers (Barwise & Cooper 1981). We have already seen that weak quantifiers have the same distribution as numerals in Scandinavian. Strong quantifiers, on the other hand, precede elements in D. Consider (4.38), where I give the basic syntactic patterns found with the strong quantifier ‘all’ in each of the main varieties of Scandinavian. (4.38) a.

Strong quantifiers in Scandinavian NORWEGIAN all-e hest-a-ne all-PL horse-PL-DEF ‘all the horses’ all-e dei svarte hest-a-ne all-PL DEF.PL black-DEF horse-PL-DEF ‘all the black horses’

130

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

b.

SWEDISH all-a häst-ar-na all-PL horse-PL-DEF ‘all the horses’ all-a de svart-a häst-ar-na all-PL DEF.PL black-DEF horse-PL-DEF ‘all the black horses’

c.

FAROESE all-ir hest-ar-nir all-M.PL.NOM horse-PL-DEF.M.PL.NOM ‘all the horses’ all-ir (teir) svørt-u hest-ar-nir all-M.PL.NOM DEF.PL black-DEF.PL horse-PL-DEF.M.PL.NOM ‘all the black horses’

d.

DANISH all-e hest-e-ne all-PL horse-PL-DEF ‘all the horses’ all-e de sort-e hest-e all-PL DEF.PL black-DEF horse-PL ‘all the black horses’

e.

ICELANDIC all-ir all-M.PL.NOM ‘all the horses’

hest-ar-nir horse-PL-DEF.M.PL.NOM

all-ir svört-u all-M.PL.NOM black-DEF.PL ‘all the black horses’

hest-ar-nir horse-PL-DEF.M.PL.NOM

As we see, strong quantifiers do not co-occur with prenominal determiners in the absence of adjectives in any of the Scandinavian languages. But in Norwegian and Swedish, a strong quantifier must be followed by a prenominal determiner if the head noun is definite and preceded by an adjective. The noun then also has a suffixed definiteness marker. In Faroese, a prenominal determiner is optional in these cases. In Danish, a definite nominal with a strong quantifier must have either a preposed determiner or a suffixed article, but it

DEMONSTRATIVES AND STRONG QUANTIFIERS

131

cannot have both. Finally, in Icelandic, a definite nominal phrase with a strong quantifier but no demonstrative will include a suffixed article but no prenominal determiner. From the fact that strong quantifiers precede demonstratives, as illustrated in (4.39), it can be concluded that strong quantifiers are located in a Quantifier Phrase on top of DemP (cf. Sigurðsson 1993, Giusti 1997, Vangsnes 1999, 2001a). (4.39)

NORWEGIAN alle desse fire gaml-e hest-a-ne all these four old-DEF horse-PL-DEF ‘all these four old horses’

Since strong quantifiers can be syntactically complex I will assume that they are generated as specifiers of QP. The full structure of the functional field of nominal phrases is then as shown in (4.40). (4.40)

QP Quantifier

Q'

Q

DemP Dem

DP D

CardP WQP

Card' αP

Card

α'

AP α

nP

If this is the correct structure, we have a straightforward explanation of why some quantifiers can be floated but not others. For example, the phrase in (4.39) will allow the quantifier to be in a lower position than the phrase that starts out as its complement. I show this in (4.41).

132

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

(4.41)

NORWEGIAN Desse fire gaml-e hest-a-ne lika-r all-e these four old-DEF horse-PL-DEF like-PRES all-PL ‘These four old horses all like oats.’

havre. oats

If we take an example like (4.42a), on the other hand, the word order shown in (4.42b) is not an alternative. (4.42) a.

NORWEGIAN Mange hest-ar lika-r havre. many horse-PL like-PRES oats ‘Many horses like oats.’

b. * Hest-ar horse-PL

lika-r mange havre. like-PRES many oats

In (4.41), what has happened appears to be that the DemP has broken off from Q and raised on its own to the surface subject position. Since the DemP is in itself fully acceptable as an argument, this movement is allowed. In a parallel fashion it is also possible to strand a QP quantifier that has a DP complement. The quantifier mange “many” in (4.42) is however not in Spec-QP but in SpecCardP (it can be preceded by a determiner, as in dei mange hestane “the many horses”). Hence, stranding mange would mean moving the nP to the higher subject position. We will see in chapter 7 that it seems to be the case that nPs can in fact be arguments in Scandinavian. However, there are certain restrictions on these nP arguments. Among other things, the head noun must appear in its bare form, and no quantification can be associated with it. It follows that it is not legitimate to move the complement of the quantifier mange in (4.42), and more generally, CardP quantifiers cannot be stranded. The examples in (4.38) show that the presence of a strong quantifier has very few consequences for the shape of the remainder of the nominal phrase. This fact indicates that strong quantifiers do not serve to identify D, which is as we might expect, since what strong quantifiers do semantically is operate on the set that the DP or DemP denotes. The reference of the DP or DemP must therefore be fixed before the quantifier enters the computation, and consequently, the quantifiers cannot identify D. Notably, a strong quantifier like ‘all’ may well combine with indefinite nouns, as in the Norwegian example shown in (4.43a). In this case, the set that the quantifier quantifies over (its restrictive term) is identical to the set denoted by αP, and consequently, D is empty, as is normal for indefinite plurals with generic interpretation. But in spite of the fact that the complement of the quantifier is indefinite, the phrase as a whole behaves syntactically as a definite phrase. It may for example not be the associate of an expletive, as illustrated in

DEMONSTRATIVES AND STRONG QUANTIFIERS

133

(4.43b). With a weak quantifier, on the other hand, the construction is grammatical, as (4.43c) shows. (4.43) a.

NORWEGIAN All-e student-ar må betale semester-avgift. all-PL student-PL must pay semester-fee ‘All students must pay a semester fee.’

b. * Det er it are c.

all-e all-PL

student-ar i student-PL in

register-et. register-DEF

Det er mange student-ar i register-et. it are many student-PL in register-DEF ‘There are many students in the register.’

Hence, the definiteness of the nominal phrase in (4.43a) and (4.43b) must be due to the strong quantifier. That is, the strong quantifier properties of alle makes the nominal phrase inappropriate in the low IP-internal position, but the DP inside that nominal phrase may nevertheless be definite or indefinite. In other words, the strong quantifier does not specifically identify a definite D. An interesting phenomenon occurs when strong quantifiers combine with numerals, however. In Danish, Swedish and Norwegian, where following a strong quantifier there is normally a prenominal determiner in DPs with adjectives, the prenominal determiner appears to be more or less optional in front of a numeral if a strong quantifier is present. Hence, in Norwegian, (4.44b) is possible alongside (4.44a), and a corresponding pattern is found in Danish and Swedish. (4.44) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN alle dei tre døtr-e-ne all.PL DEF.PL three daughter-PL-DEF ‘all the three daughters’ alle tre døtr-e-ne all.PL three daughter-PL-DEF ‘all three daughters’

The explanation for the optionality of the prenominal determiner in constructions like (4.44) is, I believe, parallel to the explanation that I gave for the examples in (2.11), chapter 2, where we saw that the prenominal determiner can be left out in front of an adjective if the DP is strongly familiar. In the present case, the definite DP in (4.44a), containing a prenominal determiner, can be discourse anaphoric, meaning that its referent has been explicitly mentioned

134

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

earlier in the discourse, or it can require accommodation of that referent into the discourse, if it has not been explicitly mentioned before. Although the difference is subtle, the version without an overt determiner, as in (4.44b), is less appropriate in a context where accommodation is necessary. In other words, the phonologically empty definite D is preferably discourse anaphoric. This contrast is illustrated in (4.45). In (4.45a) the first sentence introduces Else’s three daughters into the discourse. In the continuation the preposed determiner is more or less optional. But in (4.45b), where the existence of the three daughters is only indicated by the definite nominal phrase in the second sentence, that phrase should preferably have an overt prenominal determiner. (4.45) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN Else har tre døtrer. Alle (dei) tre døtr-e-ne Else has three daughters. all.PL DEF.PL three daughter-PL-DEF studere-r i Tromsø. study-PRES in Tromsø ‘Else has three daughters. All (the) three daughters are studying in Tromsø.’ Eg I dei

snakka med Else i går. Ho sa at alle talked with Else yesterday. she said that all.PL tre døtr-e-ne studerer i Tromsø. DEF.PL three daughter-PL-DEF study-PRES in Tromsø ‘I talked with Else yesterday. She said that all the three daughters are studying in Tromsø.’

Now recall that when the preposed determiner is the highest element of the nominal phrase, some speakers refuse to leave it out, even in cases where the definite DP is discourse anaphoric. This was shown in (2.11). By comparison, constructions like (4.44b) are widely accepted in Scandinavian. I think it is significant that in (4.44b), there is an element with nominal category features in the initial position of the nominal phrase even if the determiner is left out. Accordingly, when the DP is anaphoric, so that its reference can be picked up from the antecedent, D can be phonologically empty. In Icelandic, strong quantifiers preclude the presence of a prenominal determiner as long as the head noun is spelled out—see (4.46a). Thus, if hinn follows a strong quantifier, it will be interpreted as a real demonstrative, meaning “the other”, not as a semantically empty element that is inserted to identify D. This is illustrated in (4.46b).

DEMONSTRATIVES AND STRONG QUANTIFIERS

(4.46) a.

b.

ICELANDIC all-ir fimm ny´ ju all-M.PL.NOM five new-DEF.PL ‘all the five new students’ all-ir hin-ir fimm all-M.PL.NOM hin-M.PL five ‘all the other five new students’

135

stúdent-ar-nir student-PL-DEF

ny´ ju new-DEF.PL

stúdent-ar-nir student-PL-DEF

As for movement of αP to Spec-DP in the presence of a strong quantifier, there is considerable variation among speakers of Icelandic. One informant prefers (4.47a) to (4.47b) and (4.47c) to (4.47d). That is, this informant has movement of the complement of Card to the left of CardP whether or not that complement contains an adjective—in other words, whether it is αP or nP. Another informant prefers (4.47b) to (4.47a), but finds both (4.47c) and (4.47d) quite acceptable. That is, this informant does not like movement of αP to SpecDP when a strong quantifier precedes DP, but is indifferent about movement of nP under the same circumstances. A third speaker of Icelandic, whose judgements are reported by Vangsnes (1999:45, fn. 18), dislikes (4.47a) and (4.47d). On my interpretation, this speaker agrees that movement of αP is relatively bad in the presence of a strong quantifier, but finds that nP (when there is no adjective) should move rather than stay in place. (4.47) a.

ICELANDIC all-ir ny´ ju all-M.PL.NOM new-DEF.PL ‘all the five new students’

stúdent-ar-nir student-PL-DEF

b.

all-ir fimm ny´ ju all-M.PL.NOM five new-DEF.PL ‘all the five new students’

c.

allir stúdent-ar-nir all-M.PL.NOM student-PL-DEF ‘all the five students’

d.

allir fimm stúdent-ar-nir all-M.PL.NOM five student-PL-DEF ‘all the five students’

fimm five

stúdent-ar-nir student-PL-DEF

fimm five

(√, ?, ?*)

(?*, √, √)

(√, √, √)

(?*, √, ?*)

What these speakers agree on is that it is OK to move an nP to the front a numeral in the presence of a strong quantifier, as in (4.47c). For some, (4.47d), without such movement, is also fully grammatical. But when it comes to

136

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

fronting of an αP, that is a constituent containing one or more adjectives and a noun, to a position that is preceded by a strong quantifier, opinions differ, as we see. When a nominal phrase is introduced by a strong quantifier, the highest projection of that phrase as a whole will have a nominal category feature, because of the quantifier, and in Icelandic, it will also be overtly case-marked—strong quantifiers have visible case in Icelandic. The DP projection does then not necessarily have to be visible. It is possible that the quantifier only requires that its complement (which functions as its restrictive term) should be visibly case-marked. But note that n is spelled out as a suffixed definiteness marker in all the examples in (4.47). Presumably, this is a consequence of the quantifier not attracting D, and therefore not counting as a spellout of D, unlike the demonstratives þessi and sá that we saw in section 4.2. Now recall that a strong quantifier may have a definite or an indefinite complement. It follows that the complement must signal its own definiteness or indefiniteness. In Icelandic, this means that either D or n must be spelled out in a definite complement of a strong quantifier. Hence, when the head noun and thereby the whole complex n head is phonologically empty, the preposed determiner does show up, as in (4.48a). In this respect, examples like (4.48a) are similar to their counterparts without strong quantifiers, which were presented in chapter 2, example (2.47). They contrast with constructions like (4.48b), where the complement of the quantifier is an indefinite DP and neither D nor n is made visible. (4.48) a.

b.

ICELANDIC Ég keypti all-a þá I bought all-M.PL.ACC DEF.M.PL.ACC ‘I bought all the green ones.’

græn-u. green-DEF.PL

Ég keypti all-a græn-a. I bought all-M.PL.ACC green-IDF.M.PL.ACC ‘I bought all (the ones) that were green.’

The fact that a quantifier makes the prenominal determiner generally optional in Faroese, as seen in (4.38c), could have to do with morphological case. Recall that several overt case distinctions have been lost in spoken Faroese, so that the whole case system is in a process of deterioration. It is likely that Faroese is currently going through a transition from a stage where strong quantifiers require a case-marked complement, just like their counterparts in Icelandic, to a stage where the D of the complement must be visible if the DP is definite, just as we find it in Mainland Scandinavian. At the older stage, strong quantifiers would never be followed by prenominal determiners, but at the newer stage, they will if movement of nP to Spec-DP is blocked.

DEMONSTRATIVES AND STRONG QUANTIFIERS

137

4.5 Summary Demonstratives can precede prenominal determiners in Scandinavian. This fact suggests that demonstratives are generated above D, in a projection that is referred to here as DemP. Orders where demonstratives are preceded by DPinternal material must then be the result of movement. But normally we see no prenominal determiner in Scandinavian when a demonstrative is present, regardless of whether the DP contains adjectives or numerals. I take this to mean that the demonstrative can specify the reference of the DP. In Icelandic, the demonstratives þessi “this” and sá “that” block αP-fronting and preclude the appearance of preposed or suffixed definiteness markers, while the demonstrative hinn “the other” does neither; in fact, it requires the noun to have a suffixed definiteness marker. My proposal is that þessi and sá attract D, so that they in reality spell out the definiteness feature of D. The demonstrative hinn, on the other hand, does not attract D, and consequently, the definiteness feature shared by D and n must be spelled out elsewhere. Prenominal determiners in Scandinavian are formally identical to demonstratives. In addition, they are also often formally identical to third person nonhuman personal pronouns. Pronouns do however show more case distinctions than determiners and demonstratives. The latter fact can be used to show that certain constructions which are traditionally taken to involve a pronoun followed by a PP or a relative clause may alternatively be treated as consisting of a determiner and a PP or a relative clause. In either case, the n-Num-N complex is not spelled out. In addition, in the colloquial languages HUMAN personal pronouns can be used as demonstratives. Strong quantifiers are generated even higher up than demonstratives, and take a DemP or a DP as their complement. Strong quantifiers have nominal category features, and consequently, in Mainland Scandinavian the DP projection can be empty following a strong quantifier in cases where the DP has a discourse anaphoric function. In Icelandic, and to some extent in Faroese, strong quantifiers only require their complement to be case-marked, so that any operation to make D visible is unnecessary in the presence of a strong quantifier.

CHAPTER 5 POSTNOMINAL POSSESSORS

5.1 Introduction In this chapter, I deal with postnominal possessors; that is, with possessor phrases that follow the possessed noun within the DP. I argue that postnominal possessors in Scandinavian are licensed in the position where they are generated—namely, in Spec-NP. The chapter is organised as follows. In section 5.2 I present the most common ways to realise postnominal DP-internal possessors in Scandinavian. In 5.3 I give my analysis of possessive PPs, and in 5.4 I discuss postnominal possessors with genitive case. The topic of 5.5 is postnominal pronominal possessors, and in 5.6, I deal with the construction that I call ‘postnominal possessive pronoun with proper name’. In 5.7 I offer an explanation of why possessive PPs cannot be coordinated with other postnominal possessor expressions, and in 5.8 I look at inalienable possession, in particular possessed kinship terms. In 5.9 I give an account of what goes on at the DP level in DPs with postnominal possessors, and my conclusions are summed up in 5.10. It should be noted that I will be referring to possessors, possessees, and possessor relations without going into a discussion of the deeper meaning of these terms. I take it for granted that inside many nominal phrases we find an element A, which might be called a possessor, and an element B, which might be called the possessee, and that the syntax that relates A to B is then a possessor construction and the relation between A and B is a possessor relation. As it stands, the notion ‘possessor relation’ is quite vague—it is a cover term for a number of more specified relations. Strikingly, not only does the interpretation of the possessor relation vary from one nominal phrase to another, but it is also more the rule than the exception that one single nominal phrase involving a possessor relation allows for more than one interpretation of that relation. Still, it appears that certain relations are more typical or canonical possessor relations than others. Vikner & Jensen (2002) mention the following four relations: 1) the inherent relation, with inherently relational nouns as possessees, such as teacher or sister, 2) the part-whole relation, where the possessee is a part of the possessor, as in the girl’s nose, 3) the agentive relation, where the possessor is an agent and the possessee a product or result, as in the girl’s poem, 4) the control relation, where the possessor is animate and the possessee

POSTNOMINAL POSSESSORS

139

is an item controlled by the possessor. Legal possession is one type of control relation, but by no means the only one. For any given possessive construction, one or more of these four canonical relations will normally be available as an interpretation, even with no or little contextual support. However, as Vikner & Jensen point out, a wide range of other interpretations are often possible as well, in particular if the context is rich enough and suitable. For example, the girl’s nose could be the nose that the girl modelled. And in some cases, the most plausible interpretations are non-canonical ones. For example, my street would probably be the street that I live on, or alternatively, the street that was named after me. But the point is that the variation in interpretation is not necessarily reflected in the syntax. In English, the possessive construction my X is compatible with all kinds of canonical and non-canonical interpretations. On the other hand, there are languages where alienable possession is expressed differently from inalienable possession, and we will see that in Scandinavian, kinship terms and other inherently relational nouns appear in constructions that are slightly different from ordinary possessive constructions. It is nevertheless true that most of those possessive constructions that we find in Scandinavian are compatible with more than one interpretation. In the syntax, a possessor construction simply means that there is some relation between the possessor and the possessee. The exact nature of the relation has to be determined outside of the syntax. But since it is the syntax of possessive constructions I will be dealing with here, I think that the interpretation issue can safely be put aside for the time being. 5.2 Postnominal possessors in Scandinavian DPs Within Scandinavian there are many ways to realise a DP-internal possessor phrase syntactically. Not only is there considerable variation between the different varieties, but there is also often more than one alternative for a given possessor in one single variety. In the following, I will present the main patterns involving postnominal possessors, so that the reader is familiar with them when we turn to the analysis. In Icelandic and written Faroese, nonpronominal possessors can be marked with genitive case. Possessors in the genitive are normally postnominal, as in (5.1) and (5.2). (5.1) a.

ICELANDIC köttur kennar-an-s cat teacher-DEF-GEN ‘the teacher’s cat’

b.

köttur Jón-s cat Jón-GEN ‘Jon’s cat’

140 (5.2)

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

FAROESE (Lockwood 1977:104) rørsla arbeiðar-anna movement worker-DEF.PL.GEN ‘the workers’ movement’

In more colloquial Faroese, in Norwegian, and in many Swedish dialects (see Delsing 2003b), nonpronominal possessors are often realised as possessive PPs, as in the example in (5.3). These possessive PPs are always postnominal. (5.3)

NORWEGIAN katt-a åt nabo-en cat-DEF.F.SG to neighbour-DEF.M.SG ‘the neighbour’s cat’

In Norwegian and in those Swedish dialects that make use of possessive PPs, postnominal pronominal possessors are not realised as possessive PPs. They appear instead as bare possessive pronouns, as in (5.4). (5.4)

NORWEGIAN katt-a mi cat-DEF.F.SG my.F.SG ‘my cat’

In fact, postnominal possessive pronouns are found in all varieties of Scandinavian, except Danish and Standard Swedish. An Icelandic example is given in (5.5). (5.5)

ICELANDIC köttur-inn mi-nn cat-DEF.M.SG.NOM my-M.SG.NOM ‘my cat’

In Faroese, pronouns frequently appear in possessive PPs (Lockwood 1977). They can however also appear as prenominal or postnominal possessive pronouns. The three options are shown in (5.6).1

1 According to Delsing & Egerland (2002), possessive pronouns are commonly used only with

kinship nouns in Faroese. Moreover, their informant rejects prenominal possessive pronouns. The discrepancy between their information and mine suggests that there is considerable variation between speakers of Faroese, which ought to be investigated.

POSTNOMINAL POSSESSORS

(5.6) a.

c.

FAROESE (Zakaris Hansen p. c.) hestur-in hjá mær horse-DEF at me.DAT ‘my horse’

141

b. ? hestur mín horse my ‘my horse’

mín hestur my horse ‘my horse’

In some varieties, such as the Oslo dialect and other urban dialects of Norwegian, and in Faroese, proper name possessors as well as common noun possessors can be realised as PPs. This is shown in (5.7) and (5.8). (5.7) a.

b.

(5.8) a.

b.

OSLO NORWEGIAN katt-en til nabo-en cat-DEF.M.SG to neighbour-DEF.M.SG ‘the neighbour’s cat’ katt-en til Kari cat-DEF.M.SG to Kari ‘Kari’s cat’ FAROESE (Lockwood 1977:104–106) rørsla-n hjá arbeiðar-unum movement-DEF.F.SG.NOM at worker-DEF.PL.DAT ‘the workers’ movement’ bók-in book-DEF.F.SG.NOM ‘Jákup’s book’

hjá at

Jákup-i Jákup-DAT

In other Norwegian dialects, mostly rural, only common noun possessors appear with prepositions. A proper name possessor, when postnominal, is immediately preceded by a possessive pronoun. This pattern is also found in Icelandic, and it is frequent in Northern Swedish (see e.g. Holmberg & Sandström 1996a). I will refer to this construction, which is shown in (5.9) and (5.10), as ‘the possessive pronoun and proper name construction’.2 2 Kinship terms are sometimes treated as proper names and appear in this construction, as in

the following Icelandic example: (i)

hest-ar-nir hans afa horse-PL-DEF his grandfather.GEN ‘Grandfather’s horses’

142

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

(5.9)

NORWEGIAN katt-a hennes Kari cat-DEF.F.SG hers Kari ‘Kari’s cat’

(5.10)

ICELANDIC köttur-inn hans Kjartan-s cat-DEF his Kjartan-GEN ‘Kjartan’s cat’

In Icelandic, only certain inalienably possessed nouns, such as body parts, can be realised as PPs. Sigurðsson (1993) gives the example in (5.11). (5.11)

ICELANDIC (Sigurðsson 1993:192 n. 10) aug-u-n í mér eye-PL-DEF in me.DAT ‘my eyes’

I suspect, though, that PPs of this type are partitive expressions rather than real possessives (cf. the examples in (5.18)). In any case, I will ignore them in the following. The constructions presented above are the more common ways to realise a DP-internal possessor postnominally in Scandinavian. However, in some dialects other constructions are used instead of or in addition to the ones already mentioned. For example, in Northern Swedish one can come across constructions like those in (5.12). (5.12) a.

NORTHERN SWEDISH ((a) from Delsing 2003b, (b) from Holmberg & Sandström 1996a) hus-e pojk-om b. bil-n Janne-s house-DEF boy-DEF.SG.DAT car-DEF Janne-POSS ‘the boy’s house’ ‘Janne’s car’

In the discussion that follows I will concentrate on the more common patterns, but I will comment on the less common ones when appropriate. As for the syntax of DP-internal possessors, I have already claimed, in chapter 1, that possessors are base-generated in Spec-NP. Merging the possessor in Spec-NP correctly predicts that the possessor should precede and be able to bind into PP complements of the possessed noun, as in (5.13) (cf. Taraldsen 1990, Sigurðsson 1993).

POSTNOMINAL POSSESSORS

(5.13)

143

NORWEGIAN den ny-e forstå-ing-a hennesi av DEF.SG new-DEF understand-ing-DEF.F.SG hers of segi sjølv 3REFL self ‘her new understanding of herself’

Since possessors may follow the head noun in the surface order, while the head noun follows the adjectives, if any, it seems clear that possessors can be licensed relatively low down in the nominal phrase. My proposal is that postnominal possessors are licensed in Spec-NP, where they are generated. Prenominal possessors, on the other hand, have moved out of nP altogether. We shall see in this and in the following chapter that the variation with respect to the surface position of the possessor, and in fact all the variation seen above, can be explained as a consequence of the conditions under which the possessors are licensed. 5.3 Possessive PPs In Norwegian and Faroese, and in many Swedish dialects (Delsing 2003b), postnominal nonpronominal possessors can appear with a possessive preposition. Two of the examples given above are repeated here. (5.14)

OSLO NORWEGIAN (=5.7a) katt-en til nabo-en cat-DEF.M.SG to neighbour-DEF.M.SG ‘the neighbour’s cat’

(5.15)

FAROESE (=5.8a) rørsla-n movement-DEF.F.SG.NOM ‘the workers’ movement’

hjá at

arbeiðar-unum worker-DEF.PL.DAT

In this section, I will discuss the definiteness of DPs with possessive PPs, the licensing of possessive PPs, possessive PPs in relation to case, and the possibility for a possessor to bind out of a possessive PP. I also present possessive PPs in Jutland Danish, which appear to be different from those found in other Scandinavian varieties. 5.3.1 Possessive PPs and definiteness In the examples (5.14) and (5.15) the possessed noun has a suffixed definite article. Also note that while the possessor inside the PP can be indefinite, the larger DP must be definite—compare (5.16a) and (5.16b).

144

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

(5.16) a.

NORWEGIAN katt-a åt ein cat-DEF.F.SG to IDF.M.SG ‘a neighbour’s cat’

b. * (ei) IDF.F.SG

katte catF

nabo neighbourM

åt ein to IDF.M.SG

nabo neighbourM

The construction in (5.17) is grammatical as long as the PP is assigned the nonpossessive reading “directed to the teacher” instead of being interpreted as a possessor. (5.17)

NORWEGIAN eit forslag åt lærar-en IDF.N.SG proposalN to teacher-DEF.M.SG ‘a proposal to the teacher’ * ‘the teacher’s proposal’

I assume that on the allowed reading, the PP is a complement of the noun, or alternatively, a reduced relative clause. Such PPs allow the nominal phrase to be indefinite, even if they may express relations that can also be found in possessive constructions. For example, they may express a part-whole relation, as in (5.18), or represent the object of a deverbal noun, as in (5.19).3 (5.18) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN bein-et på leg-DEF.N.SG on ‘the leg of the chair’ eit

bein på legN on ‘a leg of that chair’ IDF.N.SG

(5.19) a.

stol-en chair-DEF.M.SG

den stol-en that chair-DEF.M.SG

NORWEGIAN endring-a av change-DEF.F.SG of ‘the change of the plan’

plan-en plan-DEF.M.SG

3 In other words, I would not treat these constructions as cases of inalienable possession. Sup-

port for this view is found in Bonneau, Pica & Nakajima (1999), where it is claimed that inalienable possession requires an animate possessor.

145

POSTNOMINAL POSSESSORS

b.

ei

endring av changeF of ‘a change of the plan’ IDF.F.SG

plan-en plan-DEF.M.SG

Moreover, certain inherently relational HUMAN nouns in Scandinavian (those that do not involve a unique relation from the possessor’s point of view) allow a partitive possessive PP construction, as exemplified in (5.20a). As we see, in this construction the larger nominal phrase can be overtly indefinite. The construction is ungrammatical with other nouns—see (5.20b). (5.20) a.

NORWEGIAN {ei tante/ein kollega } av meg an aunt/a colleague of me ‘an aunt/a colleague of mine’

b. * {ein sjef/ei a boss/a

katte } av meg cat of me

But note that the partitive possessive construction requires a preposition that is different from the preposition we find in other possessive PPs. Hence, it seems likely that the partitive possessive PP construction is syntactically different from ordinary possessive PP constructions (see e.g. Zamparelli 1998 and the references given there). I will therefore ignore it here. 5.3.2 Licensing of possessive PPs If we concentrate instead on ordinary possessive PPs, it should be noted that they precede other PPs inside the nominal phrases, as illustrated in (5.21). (5.21)

NORWEGIAN skiss-a åt lærar-en sketch-DEF.F.SG to teacher-DEF.M.SG ‘the teacher’s sketch of the plan’

av of

plan-en plan-DEF.M.SG

I conclude that possessive PPs are situated in Spec-NP. I further propose that the preposition that appears in possessive PPs is the realisation of a POSS feature. Notably, in every variety of Scandinavian that has possessive PPs at all, only one preposition is available for this use, and when that preposition appears in a possessive PP, its lexical meaning is absent. This suggests that the preposition has a purely formal function. On my view, this is the function of spelling out POSS. A crucial point concerning the POSS feature is that it is in reality a definiteness feature. This is the reason why a possessive PP triggers definiteness in its host DP. Let us take a look at how this works.

146

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

For concreteness, consider (5.22), where I show the syntactic structure that my analysis assigns to the nP that we find in the example (5.21). Here the possessed nominal has head-moved to n via Num, as nominal heads always do in Scandinavian. The n head gets its number and gender features valued by the Num and N heads, as usual. But in addition, n has a definiteness feature. This definiteness feature probes down into the complement of n and finds the possessive P, which has a POSS feature. The POSS feature of P gives the definiteness feature of n the setting DEFINITE. In this way, agreement is established between n and P, and the possessive PP gets licensed through this agreement. To make the agreement explicit, I denote the agreeing feature in n as POSS, just like the feature in the possessive P. (5.22)

nP n Num

N [F] skiss

Num [SG]

NumP n [F] [SG] [POSS] a

Num

NP

PP P åt

DP læraren

N' N skiss

PP av planen

Since POSS is in reality a DEFINITE feature, an n head containing POSS is spelled out as a suffixed definiteness marker, which reflects the gender and number of the possessed noun in addition to definiteness.4 And when n is definite, all higher heads, including D, will have to be definite. In other words, the basis of the connection between possessors and definiteness is the presence of the POSS feature in n.5 Armenian provides a striking illustration of the close relation between possession and definiteness. This language has a possessive suffix that unambiguously points to a first person possessor, as exemplified in (5.23a), and also a possessive suffix for second person. The suffix –´, by contrast, can combine with an overt possessor of any person, as (5.23b) and (5.23c) indicate. And when there is no overt possessor, the –´ suffix can be interpreted as a marker of a third person possessor or as a plain definiteness marker, as (5.23d) shows.

4 The parallelism between POSS and DEFINITE is also noted by Vangsnes (1999), who suggest

that both imply deixis. 5 Lyons (1999:24) remarks that “PP possessors do not seem to impose definiteness in any language”. We see now that this is not true for Scandinavian.

POSTNOMINAL POSSESSORS

(5.23) a.

c.

147

ARMENIAN (Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2003a:641) tun-´s b. im tun-´ house-POSS.1SG my house-POSS ‘my house’ ‘my house’ Petros-i tun-´ Petros-GEN/DAT house-POSS ‘Petros’ house’

d.

tun-´ house-POSS/DEF ‘his/the house’

My interpretation of these facts is as follows. The nominal suffixes that we see in (5.23) are realisations of n. When a covert or overt possessor is present (overt possessors surfacing in a position which is higher than n, as we see), n will agree with the possessor. The –´s suffix in (5.23a) spells out the number and person of the possessor, in addition to the POSS feature. The –´ suffix, by contrast, is void of person features; it only spells out the POSS feature. Because of this, it is compatible with any possessor, but when there is no overt possessor, it can be taken to indicate a covert third person possessor, since third person is really no person (see e.g. Harley & Ritter 2002, Adger 2003). However, since the POSS feature is a DEFINITE feature, –´ can also be interpreted as a pure definiteness marker, with no indication that a possessor is present. An observation reported by Carstens (2000, 2001) is also of some interest in this connection. Carstens points out that in Bantu languages, the possessive preposition agrees visibly with the possessee but not with the possessor. This is illustrated in (5.24). (5.24) a.

SWAHILI (Carstens 2001:155) kitabu cha mwalimu 7.book 7.of 1.teacher ‘the teacher’s book’

b. * kitabu wa mwalimu 7.book 1.of 1.teacher

According to Carstens (2001), this means that either the relation Agree does not work as suggested in Chomsky (1998, 1999), or else the possessor is not the complement of the possessive preposition in Bantu. Carstens takes the latter to be true. However, in my model visible agreement between the possessee and the possessive P is possible even if the P forms a constituent with the possessor, as we have seen. Concerning Swahili, I would propose that the expression in (5.24a) involves an nP whose syntactic structure at one stage is as sketched in (5.25). I have not indicated here any movement of N, since I am not certain how to interpret the fact that the class marker, which also indicates number, is prefixed to N. One possibility is that there is no movement of N, and that the class marker is the realisation of n after its class feature has been valued by N and its number feature has been valued by Num. The prefixing of the class marker

148

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

would then take place in the phonology, after the possessive PP has moved out of nP.6 I will however leave this open for now. What I want to point out is that the possessive P in Bantu comes with a class feature in addition to a POSS feature. This class feature will be valued by n, which has had its class feature specified by the possessee, and the result is that the class of the possessee shows up on the possessive preposition. (5.25)

nP n

NumP

[POSS] [αCLASS] Num [βNUM]

NP

[βNUM] PP P [POSS] [αCLASS]

DP

N' | N [αCLASS]

5.3.3 Possessive PPs and case It appears however that Carstens (2001) is right in saying, contra Chomsky (1998), that structural case is not simply a reflex of agreement. Although there is an agreement relation between n and a possessive PP in Scandinavian, there is no case relation. In those varieties of Scandinavian that have morphological case at all, the nominal in a possessive PP will appear in the dative case. This was demonstrated by the Faroese examples in (5.8) and by the Icelandic example in (5.11), and it is also seen in (5.26) below.

6 The example in (ia) shows that the configuration in (5.25) is disrupted at a later stage in the

derivation. One possibility is that the complex n head moves to the front of the adjective, while the possessive PP stays behind. Another possibility is that the whole nP raises but the PP moves out first. (i)a.

kitabu kikubwa cha 7.book 7.big 7.of ‘the teacher’s big book’

mwalimu 1.teacher

b. kitabu chake kikubwa 7.book 7.his 7.big ‘his big book’

The example in (ib) shows that a pronominal possessor will immediately follow the possessee, either because the possessor stays in the raising nP, or because the possessor moves to a position right below where the possessee ends up. If possessors of either type do in fact move out of nP, the scenario sketched in the main text becomes plausible. (The examples in (i) are provided by Åse-Berit Strandskogen (p.c.).)

POSTNOMINAL POSSESSORS

(5.26)

149

FAROESE (Lockwood 1977:104) hugsjón-ir-nar hjá Jógvan-i ideal-PL-DEF at Jógvan-DAT ‘Jogvan’s ideals’

In fact, with possessed kinship terms, possessive PPs occurred already in the later stages of Old Norse (Nygaard 1905). And as we see from (5.27), the nominal in such a PP would also have dative case. (5.27)

OLD NORSE (Nygaard 1905:130) faðir at barn-i-nu father at child-DAT-DEF.N.SG.DAT ‘the father of the child’

Moreover, constructions exactly similar to (5.26) and (5.27) would be used in Mainland Scandinavian as long as the dative case was retained. (The dative case has been retained in Mainland Scandinavian dialects much longer than genitive case. In some areas, the dative case is still not completely absent—see e.g. Reinhammar 1973.) The example in (5.28) is from Solør Norwegian, a dialect of southeastern Norway, as it was spoken a generation or two ago. (5.28)

SOLØR NORWEGIAN romm-e åt jint-om room-DEF to girl-DEF.PL.DAT ‘the girls’ room’

The prepositions that appear in the possessive PPs in the examples above would take a complement in the dative case also when they are not possessive. The Solør Norwegian example in (5.29) illustrates this. (5.29)

SOLØR NORWEGIAN Je ga de åt jint-om. I gave it to girl-DEF.PL.DAT ‘I gave it to the girls.’

Hence, in possessive PPs I take the case of the possessor to be licensed by P. The PP as a whole is licensed through agreement with n. However, if n could assign case, the preposition would not be there. Instead, the possessor would be realised as a case-marked DP, as in Icelandic and in literary Faroese. 5.3.4 Possessive PPs in Jutland Danish A fact that I have not yet mentioned is that there is one dialect area within Danish where possessors can be postnominal. The area in question is Jutland,

150

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

where one finds constructions like the one in (5.30a), with a possessive PP following the head noun. Note that this construction is found even in dialects that can have a suffixed article on definite nominals. Thus, (5.30a) could be from the same dialect as (5.30b). But crucially, the possessive postnominal PP and the suffixed article may not co-occur. This is demonstrated in (5.30c). Instead, D may be realised as a prenominal determiner, even in the absence of adjectives or numerals—see (5.30d). An alternative is to move the possessor to the front and leave the noun without a suffixed definite article, as in (5.30e). (5.30) a.

b.

JUTLAND DANISH (Bodil Kappel Schmidt p.c.) de tre sort-e katt-e af mi-ne DEF.PL three black-DEF cat-PL of my-PL ‘my three black cats’ katt-e-ne cat-PL-DEF ‘the cats’

c. * katt-e-ne af cat-PL-DEF of

mi-ne my-PL

d. ? de

af of

katt-e cat-PL ‘my cats’ DEF.PL

e.

mi-ne my-PL

mi-ne (tre sort-e ) katt-e(*-ne) my-PL three black-DEF cat-PL(-DEF) ‘my (three black) cats’

The Jutlandic possessive PP construction is superficially reminiscent of the partitive possessive PP construction found in other Scandinavian varieties, which was exemplified in (5.20). It is the same preposition that is used in the two constructions, and as shown below, the Jutlandic possessive PP construction also allows the possessed nominal phrase as a whole to be indefinite: (5.31) JUTLAND DANISH (Bodil Kappel Schmidt p.c.) ? en sort kat af mi-n a black cat of my-CG.SG ‘a black cat of mine’ However, unlike the partitive possessive PP construction, the Jutlandic possessive PP construction does not place restrictions on the choice of possessee. In this respect, it is more like the ordinary possessive PP constructions found in

151

POSTNOMINAL POSSESSORS

other Scandinavian varieties (although its closest parallel appears to be found in English). The fact that the possessed nominal phrase as a whole can be indefinite further suggests that the possessive P in Jutland dialects is not the spellout of a POSS feature that agrees with a POSS feature in n. Concerning the pattern shown in (5.30), my interpretation of the data is as follows. In (5.30a), what we see is close to the base-generated order, except that the noun has moved to n, across the possessor. The adjective and the numeral block further movement of nP to Spec-DP, and the realisation of D is therefore a separate word. In (5.30b), nP has moved to Spec-DP. Consequently, the noun and the number marker have become linearly adjacent to the determiner in D, and the determiner ends up as a suffix on the noun. The ungrammaticality of (5.30c) indicates that the suffixed definiteness marker is not generated in n. If it were, we would expect the example to be grammatical. The inflected noun would then be formed by the movement of N to n which would also be instantiated in (5.30b), and D would be identified by movement of nP, containing the possessor, to Spec-DP. But if the suffixed article is generated in D in all varieties of Danish, as I am proposing, it follows that (5.30c) cannot be derived if the possessive PP stays in its base position. With the article in D and a possessor in Spec-NP, the possessor would intervene between the noun and the article after raising of nP to Spec-DP. This is however never seen. Instead, we have either constructions like (5.30a) and (5.30d), with a postnominal possessor and no movement of nP, or constructions like (5.30e), which arguably has a possessor in Spec-DP (see chapter 6). Note in particular that in (5.30d) there is a prenominal determiner although there are no prenominal modifiers. This suggests that presence of a possessive PP blocks movement of nP to Spec-DP. The reason for this, as well as other details concerning possessive PPs in Jutland Danish, will have to be investigated more closely in the future. 5.3.5 Binding out of possessive PPs We have already seen, in (5.13), that a possessive pronoun can bind into the complement of the noun. Another example is given in (5.32). (5.32)

NORWEGIAN framstilling-a hennesi av presentation-DEF hers of ‘her presentation of herself’

segi 3REFL

sjølv self

In this light, it is interesting to note that a possessor contained in a possessive PP can also bind into the complement of the possessed noun, as in (5.33),

152

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

although it is not quite as good as binding of a complement by a pronominal possessor.7 (5.33) NORWEGIAN ? framstilling-a åt kandidat-eni av presentation-DEF to candidate-DEF of ‘the candidate’s presentation of himself’

segi 3REFL

sjølv self

The situation in (5.33) is reminiscent of a phenomenon that has been subject to some debate in the linguistic literature, namely, that a nominal in a PP argument of a verb can bind out of that PP. An English example is shown in (5.34). (5.34)

ENGLISH Ernest talked to Louisei about herselfi.

Both in (5.33) and (5.34), the binder, which is included in a PP, does not ccommand the bindee. The classical binding theory as laid out in Chomsky (1981) predicts that binding should then not be allowed. The possibility of binding out of PPs is therefore something that needs to be explained. For constructions like (5.34) an analysis of some recognition is that of van Riemsdijk & Williams (1986), who proposed that reanalysis applies so that the preposition ends up forming a constituent with the verb. As a consequence, the preposition no longer prevents its complement from binding the anaphor. However, there are many problems with this analysis even in the verbal domain, as Baltin & Postal (1996) pointed out. In addition, if reanalysis involves the formation of a complex predicate, it not obvious that the analysis of van Riemsdijk & Williams can be extended to the nominal domain and thus be 7 I take the subjects in (5.32) and (5.33) to have the syntax of possessors. As far as I can see,

Scandinavian nominalisations do not contain verbal projections to the extent that we see it e.g. in English ‘verbal’ –ing nominalisations and in Dutch infinitival nominalisations. For example, the Dutch infinitival nominalisation shown in (i), which is taken from Hoekstra (1999), finds its Norwegian counterpart either in the fully verbal infinitival in (iia) or in the fully nominal expression in (iib). (i)

Het

op konijnen jage-n in de zomer on rabbits hunt-INF in DEF summer ‘Hunting rabbits in the summer is forbidden.’ DEF

(ii)a. Å jaga to hunt b.

kaninar rabbits

Kanin-jag-ing rabbit-hunt-ing

om in

om in

is verboden. is forbidden

sommar-en er forbode. summer-DEF is forbidden sommar-en er forbode. summer-DEF is forbidden

The latter construction can be modified by adjectives, but not by adverbs, and the subject has the same realisation possibilities as ordinary possessors.

POSTNOMINAL POSSESSORS

153

used to account for (5.33). Clearly, what is needed is an analysis that can account for the binding relation in (5.33) as well as that in (5.34). One possibility would be to say, along the lines of Kayne (2001, 2002), that the PP is not a constituent after all, and that the P is merged to a structure in which the binder does indeed c-command the bindee. The surface order could then be derived by the P attracting the binder and subsequently moving across it. The derivation of (5.33), for example, would involve the following steps, after the head noun has merged with the possessor and with the complement and moved to n: (5.35) a. b. c.

Derivation of (5.33)? [nP framstillinga [kandidateni av segi sjølv]] (merge P) → [PP åt [nP framstillinga [kandidateni av segi sjølv]] (attract possessor) → [PP kandidateni [nP åt [framstillinga kandidateni av segi sjølv]]] (merge X, front P) →

d.

[XP åt+X [PP kandidateni [åt [nP framstillinga kandidateni av segi sjølv]]]]

But an approach of this kind leaves us with the problem of how to get the possessed noun to initial position. If it gets there by head movement, it has to cross the P and X heads, a fact that renders this solution rather implausible. Another way to arrive at the desired word order would be moving the complement of the noun first, and then front the remnant nP. In fact, instead of assuming, as I have done in (5.35), that the string av seg sjølv is fully formed inside the nP, one could say that the preposition av is merged after the stage in (5.35d), and that it attracts the complement of the noun and then moves to the front of it. But that would require a number of additional movements for which there is little motivation except that the resulting word order would be the right one. Delsing (2003a) suggests that the preposition might be in D in the prepositional possessive construction. Given his analysis, the example in (5.33) has the following syntactic structure (the PossP projection is dealt with in more detail in the next chapter): (5.36)

[DP [NP framstillinga ] [D åt ] [PossP kandidaten [Poss åt ] [NPframstillinga kandidaten (av seg sjølv) ]]]

But if we consider the more complex (5.37) in this light, we see that there are problems with Delsing’s analysis.

154

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

(5.37) NORWEGIAN ? den overbevisande framstilling-a åt kandidat-eni the convincing presentation-DEF to candidate-DEF segi sjølv 3REFL self ‘the candidate’s convincing presentation of himself’

av of

The question is how the prenominal determiner and the adjective in this example would fit into the structure shown in (5.36). If Delsing is right, (5.37) must be derived by moving to Spec-DP a constituent containing the determiner, the adjective and the possessed noun. Even if we were to assume that αP-movement takes place in (5.37), as proposed for Icelandic and Northern Swedish in chapter 2, there is as far as I can see no possible source for the determiner inside the fronted phrase, if the structure of (5.37) is as suggested by Delsing. The standard analysis of the free determiner that shows up in definite DPs with prenominal modifiers is that it appears in D when the noun cannot move to the DP projection (see e.g. Delsing 1993 and references cited there). But if there has been movement to Spec-DP in (5.37), the presence of the determiner is a mystery, especially since it cannot be in D—according to Delsing, the possessive preposition is in D. On the whole, I find a Kayne-style analysis unattractive in the case at hand. Another reason is that the parallel between possessive PPs and other postnominal possessor phrases would get lost, unless the raising analysis of possessive Ps is extended to possessive pronouns, a move which would be problematic for the theta-marking of the latter. Hence, I think it is warranted to look for an explanation of the coreference in (5.33) that at the same time allows us to retain the idea that the possessive PP is a constituent. A recent proposal concerning binding out of PPs is put forward by Yadroff & Franks (2001), who suggest that functional prepositions are case features that are split off from the nominal phrase and realised separately. They further claim that this happens in Morphological Structure, and that this is the reason why the preposition does not block binding—in syntax proper, the preposition does not exist. On my analysis, a possessive preposition spells out a POSS feature, not a case feature, but it must nevertheless be considered a functional element. Also note that binding out of the possessive PP is possible even if the possessor nominal has overt case, as the Solør Norwegian example in (5.38) demonstrates. (5.38) SOLØR NORWEGIAN ? framstilling-a åt jint-eni tå presentation-DEF to girl-DEF.F.SG.DAT of ‘the girl’s presentation of herself’

sæi 3REFL

sjUl self

155

POSTNOMINAL POSSESSORS

Hence, possessive prepositions that appear with overtly case-marked nominals are just as functional as possessive prepositions that appear with nominals without overt case marking. I would argue that all possessive PPs in Scandinavian have the same syntax, regardless of whether the nominal inside the PP has overt case, and they are not themselves case markers. If we ignore the complex internal structure of the possessed noun, the syntactic structure of the nP in the examples in (5.33), (5.37) and (5.38) can be depicted as in (5.39). We see that DP1 is dominated by the PP node; nevertheless, it is coreferential with DP2. One potentially relevant observation, noted e.g. by Reinhart & Reuland (1993), is that prepositions sometimes do not form their own predicates, but instead, they function as role-selectors for another argument taker. This is clearly the case with the possessive preposition, and it arguably also holds for the P in the complement of the NP in the examples currently under discussion. Consequently, the coreferential DPs in (5.39) are both arguments of the head noun. In the approach of Reinhart & Reuland (1993), this would mean that the head noun is a syntactic predicate, since it has a subject, and consequently, the self-anaphor marks it as a reflexive predicate. The structure is then grammatical if the reflexive predicate has another argument that is coreferential with the self-anaphor. In (5.39), this requirement is met, and it follows that the construction is grammatical. (5.39)

nP n Num N [ F]

Num [SG]

NumP n [F] [SG] [POSS]

Num

NP

PP

P [POSS]

N' DP1i

N

PP P

DP2i REFL

self

Interestingly, the approach I have just sketched would correctly rule out (5.40) and allow (5.41), on the assumption that the PP in (5.40) is an argument of the noun while the PP in (5.41) is a reduced relative clause. (Vitsar om x “jokes about x” can be replaced by vitsar som er om x “jokes that are about x”, but no such replacement is possible in the case of vener av x “friends of x”.) In (5.40), the noun is reflexive, due to the presence of the self-anaphor in argument position, but since Jon is not an argument of the noun, the construction is

156

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

ungrammatical. In (5.41), by contrast, the reflexive anaphor has a logophoric function, due to its not being an argument of the noun, and consequently, there is no requirement that it should have a coreferential co-argument. It is perfectly fine for the self-anaphor here to be bound by the c-commanding clausal subject.8 (5.40) NORWEGIAN (cf. Hellan 1988:80) * Jon traff nokre vener av seg sjølv. Jon met some friends of 3REFL self Intended meaning: ‘John met some of his (own) friends.’ (5.41)

NORWEGIAN Lina ler alltid av vitsar om Lina laughs always of jokes about ‘Lina always laughs at jokes about herself.’

seg 3REFL

sjølv. self

My conclusion is that as far as binding out of possessive PPs is concerned, the theory of anaphors laid out in Reinhart & Reuland (1993) appears to be more successful than the other proposals mentioned above. 5.4 Postnominal possessors with genitive case In Icelandic, and in literary Faroese, nonpronominal possessors can show up in postnominal position without any intervening preposition but with genitive case. The examples of this given in (5.1ab) are repeated here as (5.42ab). (5.42) a.

Icelandic (=5.1) köttur kennar-an-s cat teacher-DEF-GEN ‘the teacher’s cat’

b.

köttur Jón-s cat Jón-GEN ‘Jon’s cat’

In these examples there is no suffixed article on the noun, which suggests that the definiteness feature of n is not involved in the licensing. But it is interesting to note that some speakers of Icelandic nowadays do have a suffixed definite article on possessed nouns that are followed by a possessor in the genitive case (cf. Delsing 2003b). On my analysis, the presence of the suffixed article is an indication that these speakers have developed a grammar where even nonpronominal possessors come with a POSS feature that agrees with a definiteness feature in n.

8 The approach in Hellan (1988), according to which Norwegian self-anaphors are always sub-

ject to the requirement that they must have a coreferential co-argument, correctly rules out (5.40), as Hellan notes. However, it would also incorrectly rule out (5.41).

POSTNOMINAL POSSESSORS

157

Another indication that n can be involved in the licensing of genitive possessors in Icelandic is the fact that for my informants, possessed nominals in Icelandic behave as definite DPs even though the opposite has been claimed to be the case (Delsing 2003b). That is, these speakers dislike having a possessed DP as the associate of an expletive. Compare (5.43a), which is perfectly acceptable, with (5.43b), which is bad although the possessor in the offending DP is indefinite. A grammatical alternative not formally involving possession is shown in (5.43c). (5.43) a.

ICELANDIC Það var lögð fram tillaga á fundi-num. it was put forward proposal at meeting-DEF ‘There was a proposal put forward at the meeting.’

b. ?* Það var lögð fram tillaga stúdent-s á fundi-num. it was put forward proposal student-GEN at meeting-DEF Intended meaning: ‘A student’s proposal was put forward at the meeting.’ c.

Það var lögð fram tillaga frá ungum stúdenti á it was put forward proposal from young student at fundi-num. meeting-DEF ‘There was a proposal from a young student put forward at the meeting.’

The ungrammaticality of (5.43b) would follow if the genitive case of the possessor were dependent on n. I will therefore assume that for those speakers of Icelandic who reject the example at hand, the genitive case on the possessor reflects a POSS feature which is also present in n. As a consequence, n is definite, and the DP as a whole is excluded from the presentational expletive construction. But note that the n head need not be spelled out even if it has a POSS feature, as long as POSS is spelled out as genitive on the possessee—recall that most speakers of Icelandic do without the suffixed definite article on a noun that combines with a genitive possessor. If the observation in Delsing (2003b) is correct, there is however a minority whose grammar requires an n head with a POSS feature to be spelled out, just as we see in most other Scandinavian varieties. At an earlier stage, all varieties of Scandinavian had possessive constructions like those in (5.42), where the genitive case was probably licensed, directly or indirectly, by the noun itself (in additions to nouns, certain verbs and prepositions also assigned lexical genitive case in the older languages—see Faarlund 2004). However, in Mainland Scandinavian the noun has now lost its

158

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

ability to assign genitive case, so that all possessors have become dependent on n. Historically, the first change that happened appears to be that n became a structural case assigner. As Delsing (1991) shows, the genitive case was lost in Swedish in the fourteenth century, with the exception of genitive on possessors. And interestingly, the article system was established at the same time. Delsing’s conclusion is that the genitive changed from being a lexical case to being a structural case. He further proposes that as a structural case, the genitive is dependent on D. This is very close to my analysis, the only difference being that I take n to be the head that possessors became dependent on when the lexical genitive case disappeared. The semantic definiteness of Icelandic nouns that are followed by a genitive possessor, and the occasional occurrence of the suffixed definite article on the same nouns, are then indications that Icelandic is currently undergoing a process that took place more than six hundred years ago in Swedish and in Mainland Scandinavian in general. Interestingly, constructions reflecting a grammar at an intermediate stage are still found in certain Northern Swedish dialects. Consider example (5.12a), which is repeated below as (5.44). (5.44)

NORTHERN SWEDISh (= 5.12a) hus-e pojk-om house-DEF boy-DEF.SG.DAT ‘the boy’s house’

Here we also have a nonpronominal postnominal possessor that combines directly with the head noun, without any mediating preposition. But unlike the Icelandic construction shown in (5.42), in the Northern Swedish construction the possessor has dative case, and the possessee obligatorily has a suffixed definite article. I take this to mean that n licenses the case on the possessor. The dative case must be a consequence of the general loss of the genitive—as mentioned above, many dialects have retained the dative long after the genitive disappeared. It is therefore not surprising that the dative has taken over as the possessor case in some varieties.9,10 Finally, in some Northern Swedish dialects, in particular in the Västerbotten area, nonpronominal possessors without overt case can appear directly in postnominal position. Thus, in these dialects we find constructions like the following: 9 According to Krause (1999) a parallel development, with the genitive case being replaced by

the dative case, can presently be observed in German. Moreover, Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2003a) notes that genitive and dative have also been conflated in the languages of the Balkan Sprachbund and in Hungarian. These facts suggest that the replacement of the genitive by the dative is not accidental. 10 In Älvdalen Swedish, dative became the normal possessor case while the genitive case was still retained (see Levander 1909).

POSTNOMINAL POSSESSORS

(5.45)

159

VÄSTERBOTTEN SWEDISH (Holmberg & Sandström 1996a) bil-n präst-n car-DEF priest-DEF ‘the priest’s car’

Since the possessee has a suffixed definite article, I assume that the possessor is licensed by n. Hence, the only visible manifestation of the possessor relation is the spelled-out POSS feature in n. But apart from the absence of visible case marking in (5.45), this example is arguably identical to (5.44) in that the possessor gets its case licensed by n. In a Scandinavian context it is quite exceptional, however, since in most Scandinavian varieties where overt case on possessors is lost, n has also lost its ability to license case, so that a nonpronominal possessor can be postnominal only if it combines with a case-licensing preposition. 5.5 Postnominal pronominal possessors With the exception of Faroese, where they can appear in possessive PPs (see (5.6a)), postnominal pronominal possessors have an explicitly possessive form in Scandinavian, as we have seen. For convenience, a Norwegian example is repeated in (5.46). (5.46)

NORWEGIAN (=5.4) katt-a mi cat-DEF.F.SG my.F.SG ‘my cat’

In this section, I argue that pronominal possessors are not assigned case inside the possessed DP, and that when they are postnominal, they are licensed by agreement with n, just like possessive PPs. Even if some possessive pronouns show no overt agreement with n, I will claim that they all agree underlyingly. 5.5.1 The case of pronominal possessors An important point concerning constructions like (5.46) is that the possessive pronoun does not carry genitive case. The absence of genitive case marking on pronominal possessors is best seen in Icelandic, where genitive case is still fully alive in the nominal system. As (5.47a) demonstrates, a pronominal possessor will share the case that the head noun carries. A nonpronominal postnominal possessor, by contrast, will appear in the genitive case and resist taking on the case of the head noun—see (5.47b). The most likely reason for this is that a nonpronominal possessor, but not a pronominal possessor, is assigned genitive case inside nP.

160

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

(5.47) a.

b.

ICELANDIC (Delsing 1998) af hesti-num mí-num of horse.DAT-DEF.M.SG.DAT my-M.SG.DAT ‘of my horse’ af hesti kennara-ns of horse.DAT teacher.GEN-DEF.M.SG.GEN ‘of the teacher’s horse’

Consider also the examples given in (5.48). We see in (5.48a) that a noun with a pronominal possessor is still able to assign genitive case to its complement. As (5.48b) and (5.48c) show, the construction deteriorates if the pronominal possessor is replaced by a nonpronominal one. (5.48) a.

ICELANDIC (Delsing 1993:175) mi-nn hluti my-M.SG.NOM part.M.SG.NOM ‘my part of the heritage’

b. * Jón-s Jón-GEN

hluti part.M.SG.NOM

c. * hluti part.M.SG.NOM

Jón-s Jón-GEN

arf-s-ins heritage-GEN-DEF.GEN

arf-s-ins heritage-GEN-DEF.GEN arf-s-ins heritage-GEN-DEF.GEN

This follows if the noun (or n) can only assign genitive case to one constituent, and that the genitive case goes to the possessor when there is a nonpronominal possessor present, but not when the possessor is pronominal.11 Furthermore, it appears that for some speakers (5.48b) is marginally acceptable, thus contrasting with (5.48c). I take this as an indication that for the speakers in question, nonpronominal possessors are not licensed by the noun, but by n. Syntactically, they then behave like pronominal possessors, which in this particular case means that they end up in prenominal position, presumably because they are contrastively focused (see the discussion in chapter 6, section 6.3.)

11 In some languages, possessors are doubly case-marked: they share the case of the possessor

in addition to carrying their own genitive case (see e.g. Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2003a). The pattern shown in (5.48) suggests that this is not true of Icelandic possessive pronouns. Rather, they have only one instance of case, which is the case that they share with the possessee. If they had genitive case as well, (5.48a) would mean that inside the nP there could be two constituents with genitive case, and we would then expect (5.48b) and (5.48c) to be grammatical.

POSTNOMINAL POSSESSORS

161

5.5.2 The licensing of postnominal pronominal possessors If a pronominal possessor is postnominal, the noun will normally have a suffixed definite article. Thus, in Icelandic we find the contrast demonstrated in (5.49). While nonpronominal postnominal possessors, for speakers with a ‘traditional’ grammar, require the suffixed article to be absent—see (5.49a) and (5.49b), postnominal pronominal possessors require it to be present—see (5.49c) and (5.49d).12 The latter is also true for Mainland Scandinavian, although the contrasting genitive constructions have been lost here. (5.49) a.

Icelandic herbergi(*-ð) kennar-an-s room(-DEF) teacher-DEF-GEN ‘the teacher’s room’

b.

herbergi(*-ð) Jón-s room(-DEF) Jón-GEN ‘Jon’s room’

c.

herbergi-ð room-DEF ‘my room’

d.

herbergi-ð room-DEF.N.SG.NOM

mi-tt my-N.SG.NOM

hans Jón-s his Jón-GEN‘Jón’s room’

As expected, given the overtly marked definiteness of the noun, a nominal phrase with a postnominal pronominal possessor cannot be the associate of an expletive. I show this below with an Icelandic example, but corresponding examples could be given for every Scandinavian variety that allows pronominal possessors to follow the noun. (5.50) a.

ICELANDIC Það er kald-ur bjór i ís-skápi-num. it is cold-M.SG.NOM beer.NOM in ice-cupboard-DEF ‘There is (a) cold beer in the fridge.’

b. * Það er flaska-n mí-n i ís-skápi-num. it is bottle-DEF.F.SG.NOM my-F.SG.NOM in ice-cupboard-DEF

12 Possessed kinship nouns and certain abstract nouns are exceptions to the latter generalisa-

tion—they do not have a suffixed definite article when they are followed by a pronominal possessor. See section 5.8.

162

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

In (5.51), I show with a Norwegian example that a noun followed by a pronominal possessor cannot be overtly indefinite. Again, corresponding examples could be given from other Scandinavian varieties except for Icelandic, which has no indefinite articles. (5.51) NORWEGIAN * eit forslag {mi-tt/hennes Kari} IDF.N.SG proposalN my-N.SG/hers Kari Intended meaning: ‘A proposal of mine/of Kari’s’ My proposal is that pronominal possessors in Scandinavian are complex heads consisting of a D element and an element I will refer to as DPOSS. D is where we find the (semantic) features associated with the possessor, whereas DPOSS contains the agreement features, or more precisely, the unvalued gender, number and case features that will be valued by the complex n head of the possessee. In addition, I assume that both D and DPOSS contain a POSS feature that will agree with the POSS feature of the n head. This agreement is what licenses the pronominal possessor. In the case of an inflected possessive pronoun like mitt (see 5.49c), the POSS feature is spelled out together with the pronominal features in D. The DPOSS node is then spelled out as an agreement marker. This is illustrated in (5.52), where I have underlined the features that will be spelled out on each node. I also include, for each node, its realisation. (5.52)

DPOSS[N, SG, NOM, POSS] D[1SG, POSS] mi

DPOSS[N, SG, NOM, POSS] tt

On this analysis the DP in (5.49c) contains an nP with the syntax shown in (5.53). Note that I take n to be generated with only unvalued features, which get valued by the various elements that n agrees with: the POSS feature is valued by the possessor, which is the only element in the construction to generated with a valued POSS feature, while the gender and number features of n and of the possessor are valued by N and Num.

163

POSTNOMINAL POSSESSORS

(5.53)

nP n Num N Num [N] [SG] herbergi [NOM]

NumP n [N] [SG] [NOM] [POSS] ð

Num

NP DPOSS

D [POSS] mi

DPOSS [N] [SG] [NOM] [POSS] tt

N' | N

But as we have just seen, the agreement relation between n and the possessor in (5.53) does not lead to case marking of the possessor—the pronominal possessor is still amenable to case marking from outside the nominal phrase. That is, the case features of Num, n and the possessor are all valued by the same DP-external element. This shows even clearer than constructions with possessive PPs that contrary to what Chomsky (1998) suggests, agreement relations involving arguments are not necessarily structural case relations. Rather, it seems that we must conclude, with Carstens (2001), among others, that the Agree relation in itself is not enough to license the case of an argument.13 Carstens (2001) proposes that agreement coincides with case licensing only if one of the elements that take part in the agreement relation is an intrinsic case licenser. This idea appears to be supported by Mainland Scandinavian possessor constructions. With the exception of the Northern Swedish dialects that have constructions like (5.44) and (5.45), n does not license the case of nonpronominal possessors, as we have seen. We can conclude that in most Mainland Scandinavian varieties n is not a case licenser, and consequently, n does not license the case of pronominal possessors even if these possessors agree with n with respect to one or several features. In colloquial Faroese n is not a case licenser either, since pronominal as well as nonpronominal possessors are realised as PPs in this variety. However, in Icelandic and in literary Faroese the facts are more complicated. In these varie13 Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou (1999), who also deny that case licensing equals agreement,

argue that agreement is a PF reflex of either Case checking or EPP checking. A way to make this idea compatible with my claim that agreement between n and a possessor is possible even where case checking is not involved, is to say that the possessor then checks an EPP feature of n. This EPP-checking would have to be entirely abstract in cases where the possessor does not move to Spec-nP. But as we shall see in the next chapter, possessors do sometimes move to Spec-nP. Hence, it is possible that all possessors that agree with n are related to Spec-nP.

164

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

ties, n can license genitive case on a full DP possessor, but not on a pronominal possessor. The reason for this is most likely that since the pronominal possessor comes with a set of unvalued φ-features, complete agreement between the possessor and the projections belonging to the possessee is triggered. It is then not possible for the case features of the possessor and of the possessee to have different values. So we see that in the possessor–possessee relation, agreement blocks case licensing instead of being a prerequisite for it. We see from (5.6b), though, that Faroese is exceptional in that possessed nominals followed by a possessive pronoun do not have a suffixed definiteness marker in this language. Still, possessive pronouns share the case of the possessor in Faroese, just as it does in Icelandic. This suggests that the possessor is licensed through agreement with n, not through genitive case licensing. The absence of the suffixed article then means that in Faroese, the features that are shared by n and the possessor need not be spelled out in n. But note that at least for some speakers of Faroese, the order in (5.6b) is not the preferred one. It is better to have the possessive pronoun in front of the possessee, as in (5.6c) (but see fn. 1). The absence of the suffixed article in the latter construction, which will be discussed in the next chapter, is in line with what we find in other Scandinavian varieties. 5.5.3 Morphologically invariant possessive pronouns A potential objection to my analysis is that some possessive pronouns in Scandinavian do not seem to agree with the possessed noun. Consider the Norwegian examples given in (5.54) and (5.55). In (5.54) we see that the first person singular possessive pronoun min “my” agrees overtly in gender and/or number with the possessed noun. But in (5.55), we see that the third person singular human feminine possessive pronoun hennes “her(s)” has the same form regardless of the gender and number of the possessed noun. (5.54) a.

c.

(5.55) a.

NORWEGIAN hund-en dog-DEF.M.SG ‘my dog’

mi-n my-M.SG

b.

bok-a book-DEF.F.SG ‘my book’

hus-et mi-tt house-DEF.N.SG my-N.SG ‘my house’

d.

ven-e-ne mi-ne friend-PL-DEF my-PL ‘my friends’

b.

bok-a book-DEF.F.SG ‘her book’

NORWEGIAN hund-en dog-DEF.M.SG ‘her dog’

hennes hers

mi my.F.SG

hennes hers

POSTNOMINAL POSSESSORS

c.

hus-et hennes hus-DEF.N.SG hers ‘her house’

d.

165

ven-e-ne hennes friend-PL-DEF hers ‘her friends’

In Nynorsk Norwegian, the possessive pronouns din “yourSG” and vår “our” are inflected like min, whereas hans “his”, dykkar “yourPL” and deira “their” are invariant, just like hennes. The facts are in principle the same in all the main varieties of Scandinavian although there is some variation as to which person/number combinations are realised as inflected possessive pronouns and which are not. Cardinaletti (1998) suggests that the morphological contrast between inflected and uninflected possessive pronouns reflects a contrast in category, such that the agreeing possessors are adjectives whereas the nonagreeing possessors are pronouns. But the invariant possessors have exactly the same syntactic behaviour as the possessors that agree visibly with the possessee. Hence, I think that the difference between them is only a matter of realisation. It is a striking fact that invariant possessive pronouns in Scandinavian are made up of some form of the ordinary personal pronoun plus a possessive suffix. In hennes the suffix is –s; it can also be –ar, as in the alternative form hennar “her(s)”, or a combination of these, as in Danish deres “their(s)” and in Faroese hansara “his”. Since this suffix distinguishes a possessive pronoun from a nonpossessive pronoun, it must be taken to represent the POSS feature. That is, in the case of an uninflected possessive pronoun like hennes, the POSS feature is not spelled out in D, simply because the lexicon does not contain an item which can be used to spell out all the features of D simultaneously. The consequence is that only the features that refer to the possessor are spelled out in D—see (5.56). But since the POSS feature must be spelled out somewhere in the possessive pronoun, it is spelled out in DPOSS instead, so that DPOSS is realised as -s. And since only one marker can be inserted in the DPOSS node, it becomes impossible to spell out the remaining features of DPOSS. (5.56)

DPOSS[αGENDER, βNUMBER, γCASE, POSS] D[3SG, F, POSS] henne

DPOSS[αGENDER, βNUMBER, γCASE, POSS] s

In other words, my claim is that possessive pronouns of both types agree with n. That is, the unvalued agreement features as well as the unvalued POSS feature are present at the root of the possessive pronoun, as indicated in (5.52) and (5.56), and they are valued by the complex n head. Hence, the features of n will all be represented in the possessive pronoun, even though not all of them are visible.

166

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

In Icelandic, the possessive pronouns for the third person singular and for the plural in all persons are invariant—that is, they do not agree visibly with n. In fact, their form is identical to the genitive form of personal pronouns, which also used for some arguments that are not possessors. An example of a pronominal genitive subject is given in (5.57a). As (5.57b) shows, the pronoun in (5.57a) can be replaced by a full nominal phrase with genitive case. Finally, if we compare (5.57a) to (5.57c) we see that a pronominal possessor has the same form as a pronominal argument with genitive case. (5.57) a.

ICELANDIC Hennar gætti ekkert á fundi-num. her.GEN noticed not.at.all at meeting-DEF ‘She was not noticed at all at the meeting.’

b.

Stelpu-nnar gætti ekkert á fundi-num. girl.GEN-DEF.F.SG.GEN noticed not.at.all at meeting-DEF ‘The girl was not noticed at all at the meeting.’

c.

Ég las I.NOM read.1SG ‘I read her book.’

bók-ina book-DEF.F.SG.ACC

hennar. her.POSS

This might seem to suggest that morphologically invariant pronominal possessors in Icelandic are case-marked in the same way as nonpronominal possessors, so that they always have genitive case. However, they have the same syntactic effects as other pronominal possessors. Because of this, I assume that they have the same syntax as those pronominal possessors that visibly share the case of the possessed noun. In the agreeing possessive pronouns, the POSS feature is spelled out in D, and the agreeing person, number and case features are spelled out in DPOSS. But in the invariant possessive pronouns, POSS is spelled out in DPOSS, and for purely morphological reasons, the realisation of POSS is formally identical to the realisation of genitive case. 5.5.4 A note on Delsing’s analysis My analysis of postnominal pronominal possessors is in conflict with the analysis in Delsing (1993, 1998, 2003a), where it is claimed that all possessive pronouns represent a head in the functional domain of the possessed noun, situated between N and D. In his 1998 paper, Delsing terms this head Poss (we have already seen it in (5.36)), and he proposes that when a possessive pronoun is postnominal, the possessed NP has moved to Spec-DP, while the possessive pronoun has moved from Poss to D, as shown in (5.58). In fact, Delsing takes movement of Poss to D to be obligatory in Germanic, due to the inherent defi-

POSTNOMINAL POSSESSORS

167

niteness of possessed DPs and the complementary distribution of prenominal articles and possessive pronouns (which we will look at in the next chapter). (5.58)

[DP [NP huset ] [D mitt ] [PossP pro [Poss mitt ] [NP huset ]]]

There are certain problems with Delsing’s analysis, however. As we saw in (5.13) above, a noun that is followed by a pronominal possessor can be preceded by adjectives and by a free determiner. I repeat the example here: (5.59)

NORWEGIAN (=5.13) den ny-e forstå-ing-a hennesi av DEF.SG new-DEF understand-ing-DEF.F.SG hers of segi sjølv 3REFL self ‘her new understanding of herself’

Just like Delsing’s (2003a) analysis of possessive prepositions, which I commented on in section 5.3.5, his analysis of possessive pronouns leaves the presence of the prenominal determiner unexplained. If hennes is in D in (5.59), the whole sequence preceding hennes must be in Spec-DP. It is then hard to see how the preposed determiner can appear here at all.14 Moreover, although Delsing (1998, 2003a) claims that possessive pronouns cannot be modified, it is not entirely true. The examples he gives in support of his claim are not disputable, though. For example, instead of (5.60a), with a possessive pronoun combining with a PP, we would have a construction where the possessor consists of a nonpossessive pronoun and a PP and combines with some external possessive marker, such as the possessive –s shown in (5.60b). (5.60) SWEDISH a. * [hans med hatt-en] hus his with hat-DEF house b.

[han med hatt-en]-s hus he with hat-DEF-POSS house ‘the house belonging to him with the hat’

However, a pronominal possessor can be modified by the quantifiers ‘all’ and ‘both’, as demonstrated below:

14 The same objection can be raised against the analysis put forward in Holmberg & Sand-

ström (1996a), where it is also assumed that the possessee moves to the DP projection in constructions with postnominal possessors in Scandinavian.

168

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

(5.61) a.

b.

SWEDISH [vår-t all-a]-s ansvar our-N.SG all-PL -POSS responsibilityN ‘the responsibility of us all’ [vår-t båda]-s ansvar our-N.SG both-POSS responsibilityN ‘the responsibility of both of us’

It seems clear to me that in these cases, the possessive clitic –s has attached to a phrase consisting of a possessive pronoun and a quantifier. Both the possessive –s in general and the construction shown here will be discussed in detail in the next chapter. For now, we will simply note that pronominal possessors can indeed project phrases. They are not necessarily just heads. As for the possessor phrase in (5.60b), it is similar to examples that were given in chapter 4, section 4.3. I argued there that pronouns come with a full DP structure, including an N which can be overt or covert. In the case at hand, the N is covert. But note that a possessive pronoun does not normally go with a spelled-out N either. When a possessor consists of a personal pronoun and an overt N, the pronoun will appear in its non-possessive form, just like it does in (5.60b). This is what we see in (5.62a). In (5.62b), by contrast, where the pronoun has the possessive form, it is interpreted as the possessor of the noun that immediately follows. (5.62) a.

b.

SWEDISH [oss människor]-s brist-er us humans-POSS shortcoming-PL ‘the shortcomings of us humans’ [vår-a människor]-s brist-er our-PL humans-POSS shortcoming-PL OK when meaning ‘the shortcomings of our humans’ * when intended to mean ‘the shortcomings of us humans’

In some Scandinavian varieties, there is however a construction that seems to contradict what I just said about nouns embedded under pronominal possessors. What I have in mind is the possessive pronoun and proper name construction, where a possessive pronoun arguably has a proper name as its complement. This construction is discussed in the next section. 5.6 The possessive pronoun and proper name construction As already suggested, the ‘possessive pronoun and proper name’ construction appears to be related to the construction with a postnominal possessive pro-

POSTNOMINAL POSSESSORS

169

noun. In this section, I first discuss the syntax of the possessive pronoun and proper name construction, and after that I compare the possessive pronouns appearing in the construction to the so-called proprial articles that appear with proper names in many Scandinavian varieties. 5.6.1 The syntax of possessive pronous with proper names The possessive pronoun and proper name construction is commonly used in Icelandic, in many Norwegian dialects, and in the dialects of northern Sweden (Delsing 2003a).15 We have already seen examples of this construction in (5.9) and (5.10), and another example, which moreover shows that the proper name in this construction can be modified by adjectives, is given in (5.63). (5.63)

NORWEGIAN den svart-e katt-a hennes gaml-e Stina DEF.SG black-DEF cat-DEF.F.SG hers old.DEF Stina ‘old Stina’s black cat’

I suggested above that in the possessive pronoun and proper name construction, the proper name is the complement of the possessive pronoun. In other words, these two elements are one constituent. Since I have also argued that postnominal possessors are located in Spec-NP, it follows that the sequence hennes gamle Stina in (5.63) is a constituent sitting in Spec-NP. My analysis is once more in conflict with Delsing (1998, 2003a), who claims that the syntax of the possessive pronoun and proper name construction is as follows: (5.64)

[DP katta [D hennes] [PossP Stina [Poss hennes ] [NP katta Stina ]]]

As we see, according to Delsing the possessive pronoun is also here a Poss head that has moved to D, while the possessed noun is in Spec-DP and the proper name possessor in Spec-PossP. But again, it is unclear how adjectives and in particular prenominal determiners can be accounted for in Delsing’s system. Moreover, there is the fact that if two possessors are coordinated, there must be a pronoun preceding each name, even if the pronouns have identical features. This is shown in (5.65).16

15 Contrary to the impression that has been given in the literature, e.g. in Delsing (1993), in

Norway the construction is not at all restricted to the northern parts of the country. Although it is losing ground nowadays to other constructions, it used to be common in most varieties of Norwegian. 16 If the second pronoun in (5.65) is omitted, the only possible reading is one where Kari og Gunn is the name of one female person—an odd name indeed.

170

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

(5.65)

NORWEGIAN forslag-et hennes Kari og *(hennes) Gunn proposal-DEF.N.SG hers Kari and hers Gunn ‘Kari’s and Gunn’s proposal’

If the possessive pronoun is a head in the functional domain of the possessed noun, as Delsing proposes, we would expect there to be only one possessive pronoun per possessor phrase, regardless of how complex that phrase might be. The obligatory presence of two possessive pronouns in (5.65) suggests that the possessive pronoun forms a constituent with the proper name, instead of being a head in the functional domain of the possessed noun. In my view, the need to have a pronoun for each name in (5.65) is parallel to the need to have two determiners in (5.66). We see in the latter case that when two coordinated nominals refer to two different entities, having only one determiner will not do. There must be one determiner per nominal, even if those determiners have exactly the same features.17 (5.66)

NORWEGIAN Eg har eit eple og *(eit) appelsin. I have IDF.N.SG apple and IDF.N.SG orange ‘I have an apple and an orange.’

I therefore conclude that in the possessive pronoun and proper name construction, the pronoun and the name are generated as one constituent, just like the determiners in (5.66) would be taken to form a constituent with their respective nouns. A certain set of data from Solør Norwegian (my own dialect) can be seen as further support for my analysis. In this dialect, a prenominal pronominal possessor is necessarily focused. An example is given in (5.67a). This does not mean that a focused possessor must be prenominal—it is possible for any possessor to be focused.18 For example, a possessor in the possessive pronoun and 17 If two coordinated nominals share one determiner, as in (ia), the two nominals will normally

refer to one and the same entity (cf. chapter 2, section 2.2.4). When there a determiner for each nominal, as in (ib), one (especially if the nominal phrase has a predicative function) or two entities can be referred to. (i)a.

ein

ven og kollega friend and colleague ‘a friend and colleague [one person]’ IDF.M.SG

b. ein

ven og ein kollega friend and IDF.M.SG colleague ‘a friend and a colleague [one or two persons]’ 18 Hence, unlike what Delsing & Egerland (2002) say of Norwegian (and Northern Swedish), a postnominal pronominal possessor may well be stressed in this dialect. IDF.M.SG

171

POSTNOMINAL POSSESSORS

proper name construction can be focused even if it is postnominal, as (5.67b) shows. In fact, a possessive pronoun that is combined with a proper name cannot easily be prenominal—see (5.67c). But notably, if a possessive pronoun is coordinated with another possessive pronoun that is accompanied by a proper name, this coordinated possessor phrase can be postnominal, as in (5.67d), or prenominal, as in (5.67e). (5.67) a.

b.

SOLØR NORWEGIAN HENNES forslag (itte forslag-e HASS) hers proposal not proposal-DEF his ‘HER proposal (not HIS proposal)’ forslag-e hennes KARI (itte METT) proposal-DEF hers Kari not my.N.SG ‘KARI’S proposal (not MINE)’

c. * hennes KARI hers Kari d.

forslag proposal

forslag-e METT og hennes KARI proposal-DEF my.N.SG and hers Kari ‘ME and KARI’S proposal (not THEIRS)’

(itte DUMMES) not theirs

e. ? METT og hennes KARI forslag (itte DUMMES) my.N.SG and hers Kari proposal not theirs ‘ME and KARI’S proposal (not THEIRS)’ On my analysis, prenominal possessors have moved out of nP (see chapter 6). What the pattern shown in (5.67) means, in my view, is that a focused possessive pronoun can be attracted out of nP because it carries a POSS feature and a FOCUS feature. The POSS feature matches a feature in n, which allows the focused pronominal possessor to use Spec-nP as an escape hatch for movement out of nP, which is a (strong) phase (see chapter 2, section 2.8). The FOCUS feature matches a feature of a higher head, which attracts the focused phrase (we will get back to this in the next chapter). In the case of a possessive pronoun and a proper noun, however, the pronoun carries the POSS feature while the name carries the FOCUS feature—note that the name will get the emphatic stress that indicates focus, whereas the possessive pronoun in the possessive pronoun and proper name construction is always unstressed. Because of this, a possessor consisting of a possessive pronoun and a proper name cannot move out of nP in this dialect—there is no constituent that has the right combination

172

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

of features.19 However, such a possessor can be pied-piped out of nP if it is coordinated with a focused possessive pronoun, which has exactly the right feature combination to do focus movement. These facts show that the possessive pronoun is not in the same position when it is postnominal as when it is prenominal. It is the possessor that moves relative to the noun, not the other way round, as Delsing (1993, 1998, 2003a) would have it. Moreover, the complex possessor phrase in (5.67d) and (5.67e) must be one constituent. It does not then seem likely that the possessive pronouns are heads in the functional domain of the possessed noun. And since the pronominal part of the constituent is formally identical to an ordinary possessive pronoun, my proposal is that the possessor in (5.67b), for example, has the syntactic structure shown in (5.68). (5.68)

DPOSSP DPOSS D henne

DPOSS [POSS] s

DP D

nP Kari

Here the proper name is inside nP (presumably, it is an N that has moved to n),20 and above nP we find a D head and a DPOSS head. D moves to DPOSS, and the two together constitute the possessive pronoun, just as they do when the possessive pronoun appears on its own. That is, in the varieties that have the possessive pronoun and proper name construction, proper names are allowed to appear as complements of possessive pronouns, even if common nouns and phonologically empty N heads are not. The cause of this contrast is not entirely clear, but it should probably be connected to the fact that proper names obligatorily are preceded by pronominal elements in most of the varieties that have the construction currently under discussion. That is, proper names sometimes require a spelled-out D element that a common noun can do without. 19 Some varieties of Scandinavian regularly use constructions like (5.67c) (Delsing 1998,

2003a). In these cases the order of possessor and possessee must be a consequence of other features than focus. It must have to do with the conditions under which an unfocused pronoun plus proper name possessor is licensed. 20 A possessed proper name can precede a possessor, as in (i). This fact indicates that names move to n. (i)

ho Kari hans Per she Kari his Per ‘Per’s Kari’

POSTNOMINAL POSSESSORS

173

On my analysis, possessors consisting of a possessive pronoun and a proper name are licensed in the same way as possessive pronouns that appear on their own, namely, through agreement between the possessive pronoun and the complex n head of the possessee. But note that in Icelandic the proper name in the possessive pronoun and proper name construction is marked with genitive case. This was evident in (5.10) and (5.49d) above, and it is also seen in (5.69). (5.69)

ICELANDIC köttur-inn hans Kjartan-s cat-DEF.M.SG.NOM his Kjartan-GEN ‘Kjartan’s cat’

Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2003a) claims that the pronoun and the proper name simply agree in case, as elements that are contained in one and the same nominal phrase often do. This would mean that the whole possessor phrase is assigned genitive case. But then the question is why the suffixed article on the possessee is obligatory. Recall that for most speakers of Icelandic, a possessor in the genitive case does not require a suffixed definite article on the possessee (see section 5.4). I see no reason why a possessor containing a pronoun in the genitive case should be different. On my analysis, the pronoun in (5.69) does not have genitive case. Instead, it is like other possessive pronouns in Icelandic in that its form is due to a POSS feature that agrees with a POSS feature in n. Because of this, n is spelled out as a definite article. The suffix on the proper name, on the other hand, must be seen as a realisation of genitive case. I take this case to be licensed by the possessive pronoun. In other words, in Icelandic a D head with a POSS feature can have a complement with genitive case. It is possible that the same holds for varieties that have the possessive pronoun and proper name construction without visible case on the proper name. The remaining question is then what makes proper names different from common nouns in this respect. Note that the structure in (5.68) is very similar to the structure we would assign to a possessive PP. And as we have seen, possessive prepositions do license the case of their complement. DPOSS differs from the possessive P in its visible agreement and in its ability to attract the pronoun in D. In spite of this, in its case licensing properties DPOSS appears to be comparable to the possessive P. With this much in place, we are now ready to tackle examples like (5.70), where the DP that follows a possessive pronoun has visible dative case.21

21 Kinship terms often behave like proper names in the possessive pronoun and proper name

construction, as elsewhere.

174

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

(5.70)

VÄSTERBOTTEN SWEDISH gal-åm hans farfar-åm farm-DEF his grandfather-DEF.SG.DAT ‘grandfather’s farm’

Delsing (2003a) claims that such examples are devastating to the assumption that a possessive pronoun forms a constituent with a following possessor phrase, since on that assumption the constituent in question would have both genitive case and dative case at the same time, which he takes to be impossible. But if the possessive pronoun does not have genitive case, as I am claiming, the dative case on the noun farfaråm is the only visible case in the possessor phrase in (5.70). This dative case is parallel to the genitive case found on Icelandic nonpronominal possessors following possessive pronouns. In other words, the possessive pronoun in (5.70) licenses dative case on its DP complement, and at the same time, it represents the possessor relation that the DP bears to the larger nominal phrase. Hence, no case clash is involved here at all. 5.6.2 Possessive pronouns and proprial articles The claims put forward in the preceding subsection make it necessary to address the relation between the possessive pronoun in the possessive pronoun and proper name construction on the one hand and the so-called proprial article on the other. The proprial article is an element, determiner-like in function and pronoun-like in form, that appears with proper name arguments in many Norwegian and Swedish dialects, and also in spoken Icelandic and Faroese (Delsing 1993, 1998, 2003a). Below I give examples from Solør Norwegian, where the proprial article is obligatory with all proper names in argument position. In (5.71a) I show a proper name as subject, and in (5.71b) I show a proper name as object.22 (5.71) a.

SOLØR NORWEGIAN *(A) (vesle ) Lina jorde she little.DEF.SG Lina did ‘(Little) Lina did it.’

de. it

22 The by far most common pattern is to have the proprial article in front of the proper name,

as in this dialect. But in and around Bergen (in Norway) proper names appear with a suffixed definiteness marker (a pattern which Delsing 2003b reports to have been found in certain Faroese varieties in earlier times): (i)a.

Kari-en Kari-DEF ‘Kari’

b. gaml-e Gunnar-en old-DEF Gunnar-DEF ‘old Gunnar’

Since adjectives, if present, will precede the suffixed proper names in these varieties, as illustrated in (ib), I take the suffixed proprial articles to be realisations of n.

POSTNOMINAL POSSESSORS

b.

175

Je såg itte *(a) vesle Lina I saw not she little.DEF.SG Lina ‘I didn’t see (little) Lina.’

Although they are formally identical to the suffixed definiteness markers that appear on common nouns (-a in the feminine singular, -n in the masculine singular), the proprial articles in the Solør dialect will precede adjectives, if there are any. Hence, I take the proprial articles to be realisations of D. Interestingly, they are also formally identical to weak personal pronouns.23 This is seen if (5.71) is compared to (5.72), where the weak form of the third person singular female personal pronoun is a subject and an object, respectively. (5.72) a.

SOLØR NORWEGIAN …å a jorde de. and she did it ‘… and she did it.’

b.

Je såg a itte. I saw her not ‘I didn’t see her.’

There are however certain syntactic differences between proprial articles and weak personal pronouns. While the proprial article may well be sentenceinitial, as in (5.71a), the weak pronoun cannot—it needs a constituent to its left, as in (5.72a).24 Moreover, whereas the weak pronoun undergoes object shift— see (5.72b), the proprial article does not—see (5.71b). These differences must have to do with the fact that the proprial article forms a phrase with the name. The proprial article itself can still be viewed as similar to the weak pronoun, however. Furthermore, one could point to the similarities in the distribution of proprial articles and possessive pronouns and say that in DPs headed by proper names, the possessive pronoun is the spellout of D plus DPOSS while the proprial article is the spellout of a D without POSS. It has nevertheless been argued that although a proprial article forms a constituent with a proper name, a possessive pronoun does not (see Delsing 1993, 1998, 2003a, Holmberg & Sandström 1996a). I will look at some of the arguments that are put forward to support this view, and I will show that they all can be countered. First, there is the argument that the proprial article is absent in the so-called prenominal possessor doubling construction (the details of this construction 23 But note that the proprial articles are different from the demonstrative use of (strong)

personal pronouns that we saw in chapter 4. 24 This means that the weak subject pronoun in the Solør dialect is a ‘simple clitic’ in the sense of Zwicky (1977), and not a ‘special clitic’, which is what Grohmann (2000) claims for subject clitics in West Germanic. My conclusion concerning the weak pronouns in the Solør dialect is in accordance with the suggestion in Hellan & Platzack (1995) that weak pronouns in Scandinavian generally do not necessarily occupy special positions.

176

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

will be discussed in chapter 6). This claim first appeared in Fiva (1987), and it has later been quoted in many places in the literature. It is true that in many Northern Norwegian dialects where the proprial article is obligatory with proper name arguments, as in (5.73a), it is absent when proper name possessors appear in the prenominal possessor doubling construction, as in (5.73b) . (5.73) a.

b.

NORTHERN NORWEGIAN *(Ho) Siri e hær. she Siri is here ‘Siri is here.’ (*Ho) Siri si-n she Siri REFL.POSS-M.SG ‘Siri’s bike is here.’

sykkel bikeM

e hær. is here

The authors mentioned above take this to mean that unlike other proper name arguments, proper name possessors do not need proprial articles, and it follows that the possessive pronoun in the possessive pronoun and proper name construction does not have the function of the proprial article. However, (5.73) is not representative for all Norwegian dialects. In some dialects the proprial article is optional in constructions like (5.73b).25 In other dialects, such as the Solør dialect, all proper name possessors must appear with a proprial article or with a pronoun. In (5.74a) I demonstrate this with a prenominal possessor, and in (5.74b) I show a postnominal possessor with a pronoun. (5.74) a.

b.

SOLØR NORWEGIAN *(a) Lina si-ne she Lina REFL.POSS-PL ‘Lina’s two black cats’

to svart-e katt-er two black-DEF cat-PL

di

to svart-e katt-en *(hennes) Lina DEF.PL two black-DEF cat-DEF.F.PL hers Lina ‘Lina’s two black cats’

It seems that at least in the Solør dialect, the possessive pronoun and the proprial article serve the same function and compete for the same position. Concerning the varieties where the proprial article is absent or optional in the prenominal possessor doubling construction, it should be noted that a post-

25 The dialects I know of with this property are spoken in Trøndelag. To get a more complete

picture of the situation in Norwegian as a whole more research is needed.

POSTNOMINAL POSSESSORS

177

nominal proper name possessor will be preceded by a pronoun in these varieties, as illustrated in (5.75). (5.75)

NORTHERN NORWEGIAN sykkel-en hennes Siri bike-DEF hers Siri ‘Siri’s bike’

Hence, proper name possessors in the prenominal possessor doubling construction are the only exceptions from the general rule that proper name arguments must be immediately preceded by a pronominal element. There is a simple explanation for this, I think. Since the reflexive pronominal element in the prenominal possessor doubling construction spells out all the morphosyntactic features that the D of the possessed phrase shares with the D of the possessor (see chapter 6, section 6.4), the D of the possessor need not be spelled out, but in all other cases, the D head of a DP argument containing a proper name must be spelled out as a (possessive or nonpossessive) pronoun. Delsing (1993, 1998, 2003a) also mentions that some dialects have the proprial article but not the possessive pronoun and proper name construction, while in other dialects, it is the other way round. For Delsing, this is another argument against the idea that possessive pronouns should be identified with proprial articles. However, the dialects that have the proprial article but not the possessive pronoun and proper name construction have found other means of licensing a proper name possessor. It does not follow that a possessive pronoun that combines with a proper name should not be connected to the proprial article in those dialects that have both. On the other hand, in the south of Norway there is an area where proprial articles are missing but the possessive pronoun and proper name construction is used (Torp 1973, Delsing 2003a). This must mean that in this area, proper name arguments that are not possessors can appear with an empty D, like in the standard varieties of Mainland Scandinavian (and in other Germanic languages —see Longobardi 2001). However, a proper name possessor will combine with a D containing a POSS feature, and a DPOSS will be merged over D. It is not very surprising that there are dialects where the possessive D/DPOSS complex must be spelled out even if a non-possessive D can be phonologically empty when it has a proper name as complement. Again, my analysis of the possessive pronoun can be maintained. There is however one dialect group within Mainland Scandinavian where the syntax of the possessive pronoun and proper name construction is more complicated. In some dialects in Västerbotten in Sweden, a possessive pronoun may co-occur with a proprial article, as demonstrated in (5.76a). It is also pos-

178

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

sible to have a possessive pronoun followed by a noun with a definite article, as in (5.76b) (Holmberg & Sandström 1996a, Delsing 1998, 2003a).26 (5.76) a.

b.

VÄSTERBOTTEN SWEDISH hus-et hans n house-DEF.N.SG his M.SG ‘Janne’s house’

Janne Janne

hus-et hans kyrkoherd-en house-DEF.N.SG his vicar-DEF.M.SG ‘the vicar’s house’

More generally, it appears that in the dialects in question, possessive pronouns can be followed by nominal phrases of any type, as Delsing (2003a) points out. This is different from what we find in many other varieties of Scandinavian, where possessive pronouns can only be followed by a nominal phrase headed by a proper name. Consequently, while the possessive pronoun in most varieties of Scandinavian can be taken to spell out the D and DPOSS associated with the proper name, it must receive a different analysis in (5.76a). Here it must be the proprial article that spells out the D that is generated over the proper name. The possessive pronoun must then have a DP as its complement. This could also be the case in (5.76b), if we assume that the lower D is identified by movement of nP, containing the definite noun kyrkoherden, to Spec-DP. The possessive pronouns in the constructions in (5.76) would then in their entirety be inserted over the possessor DP, in order to turn that DP into a licit possessor. 5.7 Coordination of postnominal possessors In the previous sections we have seen that Norwegian has postnominal possessors of three types: PP possessors, pronominal possessors, and possessive pronoun plus proper name combinations. Not all speakers of Norwegian would find all three variants equally natural, though. I will therefore use examples from the Solør dialect of Norwegian to show that possessors of different types cannot freely be coordinated. I first present the facts, and then I give my analysis. 5.7.1 Coordination of postnominal possessors: the facts In Solør Norwegian it is perfectly acceptable to coordinate two postnominal pronominal possessors, as in (5.77a), or a pronominal possessor and a possessive pronoun plus proper name combination, as in (5.77b) and (5.77c). Coordi-

26 Other possessive constructions from Västerbotten were shown in (5.45) and (5.70).

POSTNOMINAL POSSESSORS

179

nating two possessors consisting of a possessive pronoun and a proper name, as in (5.77d), is also unproblematic.27 (5.77) a.

SOLØR NORWEGIAN forslag-e mett å hennes proposal-DEF.N.SG my.N.SG and hers ‘my and her proposal [possibly one proposal]’

b.

forslag-e mett å hennes Kari proposal-DEF.N.SG my.N.SG and hers Kari ‘my and Kari’s proposal [possibly one proposal]’

c.

forslag-e hennes Kari å mett proposal-DEF.N.SG hers Kari and my.N.SG ‘Kari’s and my proposal [possibly one proposal]’

d.

forslag-e hennes Kari å hennes Gunn proposal-DEF.N.SG hers Kari and hers Gunn ‘Kari’s and Gunn’s proposal [possibly one proposal]’

Note that each of the expressions shown in (5.77) can be used to refer to one single proposal. This is an indication that only one possessee projection is involved, and that the coordination only involves constituents in Spec-NP. Thus, we have here another argument against the proposal in Delsing (1993, 1998, 2003a) that possessive pronouns are heads in the functional domain of the possessed noun. Further, two possessive PPs can be coordinated, as (5.78a) shows. Alternatively, two DPs can be coordinated inside the possessive PP, as in (5.78b). In either case, only one possessee need be involved. This is not remarkable at all: it seems to hold in general that combining an adposition with two coordinated nominals is equivalent to coordinating two PPs with identical Ps. For example, in English for John and Mary is interchangeable with for John and for Mary. (5.78) a.

SOLØR NORWEGIAN forslag-e åt lærer-n å åt student-en proposal-DEF.N.SG to teacher-DEF and to student-DEF ‘the proposal of the teacher and of the student [possibly one proposal]’

27 In this respect the Solør dialect of Norwegian is similar to Faroese and different from the

Northern Scandinavian dialects reported on by Holmberg (1991) and by Delsing & Egerland (2002), where coordination of postnominal pronominal possessors is not possible. The same restriction is found in some Norwegian varieties. Presumably, in these varieties problems arise when a CoP requires licensing by n.

180

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

b.

forslag-e åt lærer-n å student-en proposal-DEF.N.SG to teacher-DEF and student-DEF ‘the proposal of the teacher and the student [possibly one proposal]’

It is however impossible to coordinate a pronominal possessor and a possessive PP, as in (5.79a). The only grammatical solution is to coordinate the nonpronominal possessor with a nonpossessive pronoun inside one PP, as in (5.79b). Similarly, possessive pronoun plus proper name combinations cannot be coordinated with possessive PPs—see (5.79c), but a nonpossessive pronoun plus proper name combination can be coordinated with a common noun possessor inside a possessive PP—see (5.79d). (5.79) SOLØR NORWEGIAN a. * forslag-e mett proposal-DEF.N.SG my.N.SG b.

å åt lærer-n and to teacher-DEF

forslag-e åt mæ å lærer-n proposal-DEF.N.SG to me and teacher-DEF ‘me and the teacher’s proposal [possibly one proposal]’

c. * forslag-e hennes Stina proposal-DEF.N.SG hers Stina d.

å åt lærer-n and to teacher-DEF

forslag-e åt a Stina å lærer-n proposal-DEF.N.SG to she Stina and teacher-DEF ‘Stina’s and the teacher’s proposal [possibly one proposal]’

If the order of the possessors in (5.79a) and (5.79c) is reversed, so that the possessive PP comes first, the result will be grammatical. But unlike the examples shown in (5.77)– (5.79), (5.80a) necessarily refers to two proposals, and so does (5.80b). This means that the constructions in (5.80) are in reality coordinations of two possessed DPs, with ellipsis of the possessee in the second DP, as indicated.28 (5.80) a.

SOLØR NORWEGIAN forslag-e åt lærer-n å forslag-e mett proposal-DEF to teacher-DEF and proposal-DEF my.N.SG ‘the teacher’s proposal and mine [two proposals]’

28 Contrary to what Schoorlemmer (1998) predicts, possessors have no special form in elliptic

constructions in Scandinavian, except in Danish dialects on Jutland (see Nielsen 1964).

POSTNOMINAL POSSESSORS

b.

181

forslag-e åt lærer-n å forslag-e hennes Stina proposal-DEF to teacher-DEF and proposal-DEF hers Stina ‘the teacher’s proposal and Stina’s [two proposals]’

As shown in (5.81), pronominal possessors as well as possessive pronoun and proper name combinations allow ellipsis of the possessee, while PP possessors do not. PP possessors must be accompanied by an overt element representing the possessee. This may be a pronoun, as in (5.81c), or a full noun, as in the examples above. The reason is probably that the PP is not of the nominal category. Hence, if the possessed noun is omitted in a construction with a PP possessor, the resulting phrase will not have an overt nominal category feature, and it will not be able to function as an argument. (5.81) a.

SOLØR NORWEGIAN Je støtt-er dett. I support-PRES your.N.SG ‘I support yours.’

b.

Je støtt-er hennes Stina. I support-PRES hers Stina ‘I support Stina’s.’

c.

Je støtt-er *(de) åt lærer-n. I support-PRES it/that to teacher-DEF.M.SG ‘I support the teacher’s.’

It follows that the word orders in (5.80a) and (5.80b) can be derived as indicated in those examples. As for the examples in (5.79a) and (5.79c), they become grammatical if the possessive PP is combined with a dummy possessee: (5.82) a.

b.

SOLØR NORWEGIAN forslag-e mett å de åt lærer-n proposal-DEF.N.SG my.N.SG and that to teacher-DEF ‘my proposal and that of the teacher’ forslag-e hennes Stina å de åt lærer-n proposal-DEF.N.SG hers Stina and that to teacher-DEF ‘Stina’s proposal and that of the teacher’

Now we have coordinations of two possessed DPs. Since this is the only way to rescue these constructions, I conclude that building a complex possessor phrase from a PP possessor and a possessor headed by a pronoun is impossible.

182

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

5.7.2 Coordination of postnominal possessors: the analysis The data presented above are reminiscent of a phenomenon known from clausal syntax, namely, the impossibility of coordinating a DP and a PP to form the object of a verb. To give an example, the Norwegian verb tenke “think” can take a DP object, as in (5.83a), or a PP object, as in (5.83b), but objects of different types cannot be coordinated, as shown in (5.83c) and (5.83d). (5.83) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN Han tenkte rare tankar. he thought strange thoughts ‘He had strange thoughts.’ Han tenkte på henne. he thought at her ‘He thought of her.’

c. * Han tenkte rare tankar he thought strange thoughts d. * Han tenkte på he thought at

henne her

og på and at

henne. her

og rare tankar. and strange thoughts

Neeleman (1997) discusses similar examples from Dutch, claiming that in the case of a PP object, the preposition incorporates abstractly into the verb. He also assumes that this incorporation would have to affect each conjunct if the object is a coordinated phrase. It follows that DP objects, which have no P that incorporation can apply to, cannot be coordinated with PP objects. Baker (2003), on the other hand, argues that PP ‘objects’ are actually adjuncts, and that they are linked to an empty DP which is the real complement of the verb. This analysis would also explain the ungrammaticality of (5.83c) and (5.83d). Firstly, the two conjuncts are of fundamentally different types: the DP is an argument of the verb while the PP is an adjunct. Secondly, the object position is occupied by the empty nominal phrase that the PP is linked to. It is therefore impossible for the coordinated structure to take this position. A problem with Neeleman’s proposal is that just like the complex predicate analysis of van Riemsdijk & Williams (1986), which was mentioned in section 5.3.5, it cannot very easily be applied to the nominal domain. Concerning Baker’s proposal, extending it into the nominal domain means saying that a PP possessor is adjoined to some nominal projection and linked to an empty DP possessor in Spec-NP. I am not sure how plausible this is, and consequently, I will try out a different analysis. I will make use of the analysis of coordination put forward in Johannessen (1998). According to Johannessen, a coordinator projects a phrase CoP, and it

POSTNOMINAL POSSESSORS

183

takes one conjunct as its specifier and another as its complement. The CoP as a whole inherits the syntactic category features from its specifier conjunct, and the specifier conjunct, but not the complement conjunct, can interact with elements outside CoP. The main features of Johannessen’s analysis, which is strongly inspired by Munn (1993) and Kayne (1994), are shown below. (5.84)

CoPα Conjunct Aα Co

Co' Conjunct Bβ

Johannessen further argues that there are three ways to license the conjuncts inside a CoP in argument position. One possibility is that the whole CoP, and accordingly, both conjuncts, have default case. Another possibility is that the specifier conjunct gets the case that is associated with the position occupied by the CoP, while the complement conjunct gets default case. The third possibility is that both conjuncts get the case associated with the position that the CoP occupies. In such cases, the relation that the CoP as a whole bears to the larger syntactic structure is transmitted to both conjuncts. Implicit in Johannessen’s proposal is the idea that if a CoP is in a case position, both conjuncts must bear case—either the case associated with the position or a default case. More generally, one could say that the two conjuncts in a CoP must both be licensed in the same way, unless one conjunct, or both of them, has some default licensing mechanism to resort to. Let us now see how this could account for CoPs in object position. The first thing that should be noted is that there is no general ban on coordinating structural objects of different categories. Neeleman (1997) shows, for example, that it is possible to coordinate a DP object and a CP, as in (5.85a), and apparently even a DP and a PP object, as in (5.85b).29

29 Johannessen (1998) also notes that the conjuncts inside one single CoP need not be of the

same category. As an illustration of her point she gives the following example, where a DP, an AP and a PP are (cyclically) coordinated to form a complex predicate (Johannessen 1998:111): (i)

Zoe is a woman, rich and in the lucky position of owning a castle.

If my generalisation is correct, it must be the case that these predicates are all licensed in the same way. One possibility is that each of them combines with a phonologically empty Pred head through which they relate to the CoP and to the larger syntactic structure. See e.g. Baker (2003) and references cited there on Pred heads.

184

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

(5.85) a.

b.

DUTCH (Neeleman 1997:118–119 n. 11 & n. 13) [CP Dat je dat gedaan hebt] en ook [DP je leugens that you that done have and also your lies er-over ] betreur ik. there-about regret I ‘I regret that you did that and also your lies about it.’ Zowel [DP die route] als [(PP) door de polder] as.well that route as through the polder zou ik willen afraden. would I want advise.against ‘I would advise against that route as well as through the polder.’

Concerning the CP and DP object in (5.85a), which must be one constituent since it has moved to first position, I take both conjuncts, the CP as well as the DP, to have case. The idea that CPs can have case has been argued for recently by Picallo (2002), who among other things points to constructions like the following, from Basque: (5.86)

BASQUE (Picallo 2002:142; quoted from Levin 1993) Miren-ek esan du [CP Jon Miren-ERG say.PERF AUX.3SG.ERG/3SG.ABS Jon.ABS etorri dela ]. come.PERF AUX.3SG.ABS.C ‘Miren has said that Jon has come.’

Here the matrix verb has a DP subject and a CP object. The DP subject has ergative case, which must mean that some other argument of the verb has absolutive case. The absolutive argument can only be the CP. Following up on this I propose that both conjuncts in the CoP object in (5.85a) are licensed by virtue of bearing a case relation to the larger structure. As for (5.85b), which seemingly has an object made up of a DP and PP coordination, I assume that the phrase door de polder has an abstract nominal head, since what it really means is “the route through the polder”. This is similar to the analysis suggested in Kayne (2000) for the phrase behind the tree in (5.87a), which he takes to be headed by a phonologically empty nominal meaning ‘place’, as indicated in (5.85b). (5.87) a. b.

ENGLISH (Kayne 2000) John came out from behind the tree. John came out from [PLACE behind the tree].

POSTNOMINAL POSSESSORS

185

The licensing of the phrase must then be due to the case relation that holds between the PLACE nominal and the higher preposition from. If we now go back to the second conjunct inside the object in (5.85b), its abstract nominal head must mean PATH instead of PLACE. This head is case-licensed, possibly by sharing the case that the other conjunct carries. The object in (5.83b) should however probably be analysed differently. The preposition that introduces the phrase på henne “of her” is selected by the verb, and the semantics of the construction gives no reason to postulate an abstract nominal head. It is therefore likely that this argument really is a PP, and that this PP is not case-marked but instead licensed through the selection relation that holds between the verb and the preposition. The ungrammaticality of (5.83c) and (5.83d) then follows. In (5.83c), the first conjunct, which I take to be the specifier of CoP, has abstract accusative case. Consequently, the CoP as a whole has abstract accusative case. It is then impossible for the second conjunct, which is a PP argument, to establish the relation with the verb that it needs in order to be licensed. In (5.83d) the first conjunct is a PP selected by the verb, and consequently, the CoP as a whole should also be so selected. But the second conjunct, which is a DP, needs to enter into a case relation. This is however impossible, and the construction is ungrammatical. Turning now to coordination of possessors, we would expect it to be subject to similar requirements as coordination of subjects and objects, so that when possessors are coordinated, both conjuncts must partake of the relation that licenses the CoP as a whole. It is interesting in this context that some speakers of Icelandic cannot coordinate a pronominal possessor and a nonpronominal possessor, as the example in (5.88) demonstrates.30 (5.88) ICELANDIC (Þorbjörg Hróarsdóttir p.c.) * herbergi-ð mitt og kennar-an-s room-DEF.N.SG my.N.SG and teacher-DEF-GEN We have already seen that a nonpronominal possessor in Icelandic has genitive case while a pronominal possessor simply agrees with n without having genitive case. In the more traditional grammar there is also the difference that pronominal possessors trigger definiteness marking on the possessed noun but genitive possessors do not. It is clear that the two possessors then do not bear 30 Instead we get the construction in (i), where the possessive pronoun refers to the two pos-

sessors and the following genitive nominal specifies one of them. That is, the reference of the nonpronominal nominal is a proper subset of the reference of the pronoun. This pattern is not limited to possessive nominals, it is also seen in the nonpossessive nominal phrase in (ib). See Josefsson (1999) for an analysis. (i)a.

herbergi-ð okkar kennar-an-s room-DEF our teacher-DEF-GEN ‘my and the teacher’s room’

b. við kennar-inn we teacher-DEF ‘we, the teacher and me’

186

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

the same relation to n (I even suggested in 5.4 that in the traditional grammar, genitive possessors are licensed by the noun, not by n). Because of this, no relation between CoP and n will be compatible with both conjuncts, and the coordination is impossible. Other speakers of Icelandic accept (5.88). But these speakers seem to be those who allow possessors with genitive case to co-occur with complements with genitive case (cf. (5.48)), and who have suffixed definite articles on nouns that combine with nonpronominal possessors (cf. (5.49)). In short, they have a modern possessor syntax more generally. It is therefore possible that for these speakers, nonpronominal possessors do in fact bear the same relation to n as pronominal possessors, and consequently, possessors of the two types can be coordinated. The coordination possibilities in Solør Norwegian seen above can also be explained as consequences of the possessive PPs bearing a different relation to n than other postnominal possessors. Consider first coordination of pronominal possessors, with or without accompanying proper names. We saw in (5.77) that such coordination is perfectly acceptable in Solør Norwegian. As indicated in (5.89), the conjuncts as well as CoP then carry POSS and φ-features that agree with those of n. Since both conjuncts take part in the agreement relation between CoP and n, they are both licensed. (5.89)

CoP[POSS,φ] [mett ][POSS,φ]

Co'

[hennes Kari ][POSS,φ] Co å

[hennes ][POSS,φ] [hennes Gunn ][POSS,φ]

Coordination of two PP possessors is also unproblematic, as we saw in (5.78a). In this case, the two conjuncts again bear the same relation to n. More precisely, they both agree with the [POSS] feature of n, as indicated in (5.90). (5.90)

CoPPP[POSS] [åt lærern ][POSS] Co' Co å

[åt studenten ][POSS]

POSTNOMINAL POSSESSORS

187

An alternative is to coordinate possessors inside a possessive PP—see (5.78b), (5.79b) and (5.79d). As illustrated in (5.91), the coordinated possessors as well as the whole CoP are nonpossessive DPs in such cases. Accordingly, it does not matter here whether the coordinated DPs are made up of pronouns, proper names, or common nouns. (5.91)

PP[POSS] P[POSS] CoPDP åt [DP lærern ] Co' [DP mæ ] [DP a Stina ] Co å

[DP studenten ] [DP lærern ]

It is not possible, however, to coordinate a possessive PP and a possessor phrase headed by a pronoun. The examples in (5.79a) and (5.79c) showed this. The explanation I will offer is the following. If the PP possessor is the specifier of CoP, as in (5.92), the CoP node will share the POSS feature that the PP possessor carries, and the CoP itself as well as the PP possessor is licensed by virtue of their POSS feature agreeing with the POSS feature of n. (5.92) *

CoP[POSS] [åt lærern ][POSS] Co å

Co' [mett ][POSS,φ] [hennes Stina][POSS,φ]

The pronominal possessor, on the other hand, which is a DP with φ-features as well as a POSS feature in its highest projection, is only licensed if those features agree with features of n. But due to its embedded position within the CoP, the possessive DP cannot establish its own relation to n, nor can the required agreement relation be established through CoP. Consequently, the pronominal possessor is hopelessly lost. If the possessors switch positions we get a similar problem. As indicated in (5.93), when the pronominal possessor is in Spec-CoP, its POSS feature and its φ-features will be shared by the CoP node, so that agreement with n can be established. But the PP possessor, which has no φ-features in its highest projection, cannot partake in the relation that holds between the pronominal pos-

188

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

sessor, the CoP node and n. Because of this, the PP possessor is not licensed, and the coordination is ungrammatical. (5.93) *

CoP[POSS,φ] [mett ][poss,φ]

Co'

[hennes Stina][POSS,φ] Co å

[åt lærern ][POSS]

In short, we can conclude that because pronominal possessors and PP possessors are not licensed in the same way, although both types depend on n for their licensing, coordination of a pronominal possessor and a PP possessor is ungrammatical. 5.8 Inalienable possession In many cases, alienable and inalienable possession can be expressed by identical means in Scandinavian. For example, in Icelandic a possessor in the genitive case may well combine with a kinship term as possessee, as in the example below. (5.94)

ICELANDIC elsti bróðir mömmu oldest.DEF brother Mummy.GEN ‘Mummy’s oldest brother’

And just like the genitive possessor constructions in Icelandic can express alienable or inalienable possession, for many speakers of Norwegian an inalienable possessee makes no difference for the PP possessor construction or for the postnominal possessive pronoun construction. I illustrate this in (5.95) with examples from Bokmål Norwegian, which most closely reflects the varieties that I have in mind. (5.95) a.

NORWEGIAN (BOKMÅL) {bror-en/arm-en} til Kari brother-DEF/arm-DEF to Kari ‘Kari’s brother/arm’

POSTNOMINAL POSSESSORS

b.

189

{bror-en/arm-en} min brother-DEF/arm-DEF my ‘my brother/arm’

A possessee referring to a body part will behave syntactically in the same way as any other possessee when it combines with a pronominal possessor, or with a possessive pronoun plus proper name, in the varieties that allow this. The latter is illustrated in (5.96a). But when the possessee is a body part and the possessor is expressed as a common noun, an alternative in Norwegian is to use the construction shown in (5.96b). Here the possessor is contained in a PP headed by a preposition which is not the regular possessive P. Instead, it is the same preposition that is used to express part-whole relations more generally, as we saw in (5.18). (5.96) a.

NORWEGIAN hovud-et hennes Kari head-DEF her Kari ‘Kari’s head’

b.

hovud-et på jent-a head-DEF on girl-DEF ‘the girl’s head’

In Scandinavian, deviations from ordinary possessive constructions are however most often found with possessed kinship terms. For example, in Faroese only kinship terms can take possessors with accusative case, as in (5.97). (5.97)

FAROESE (Lockwood 1977:103) mamma brúðr-ina mother.NOM bride-DEF.F.SG.ACC ‘the bride’s mother’

Moreover, the Faroese speaker whose judgements are reported in Delsing & Egerland (2002) allows only kinship terns to combine directly with a pronominal possessor, as in the example in (5.98a). In all other cases a pronominal possessor is preferably contained in a PP of the type shown in (5.98b) (see also (5.6a)). (5.98) a.

FAROESE brøður mínir brother.PL my.PL ‘my brothers’

b.

bók-in hjá book-DEF at ‘my book’

mær me.DAT

Furthermore, while possessed nouns in Icelandic normally have a suffixed definite article when they are followed by a pronominal possessor—see (5.49),

190

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

kinship terms and other inherently relational nouns appear without a suffixed definiteness marker in such cases. Some examples are given in (5.99).31 (5.99) a.

ICELANDIC faðir minn father my ‘my father’

b.

skoðun mín view my ‘my view’

c.

hlutverk mitt task my ‘my task’

Inherently relational nouns with pronominal possessors can even head indefinite nominal phrases, as in the following: (5.100) ICELANDIC einn vinur one.M.SG.NOM friend.SG.NOM ‘one of my friends’

minn my.M.SG.NOM

This suggests that inherently relational nouns can license any possessor without assistance from n. For concreteness I propose that vínur in (5.100) carries a POSS feature which agrees with the POSS feature of the pronominal possessor, as depicted in (5.101). (5.101)

nP n Num N [M] [POSS] vinur

Num [SG] [NOM]

NumP n [M] [SG] [NOM]

Num

NP D [M] [SG] [NOM] [POSS] minn

N' | N

The gender, number and case features of the n head will still be valued by N and Num, as always. However, with the possessor licensed by the POSS feature in N, it is possible for n, and thereby for the whole DP, to be indefinite.32 To my surprise, I recently came across a Norwegian example that is parallel to (5.100). This example, shown in (5.102), demonstrates that for some speak31 More details can be found in Sigurðsson (1993). 32 Alexiadou (2003) argues, on the basis of Greek, that the possessor in an inalienable posses-

sion relation is a complement of the possessed noun. I will not go into this possibility here.

191

POSTNOMINAL POSSESSORS

ers of Norwegian, inherently relational nouns like granne “neighbour” can in fact license its own possessor and allow n to be indefinite.33 (5.102) NORWEGIAN % Han snakka med ein granne he talked with IDF.M.SG neighbourM ‘He talked with a neighbour of his.’

si-n. 3REFL.POSS-M.SG

I have no information as to how widespread this phenomenon is in Norwegian.34 What I do know to be quite common is possessed kinship terms appearing without a suffixed definiteness marker even in constructions where other possessed nominals must have such a marker. Thus, for many speakers of Norwegian a suffixless kinship term may be followed by a possessive pronoun, as in (5.103a), by a possessive pronoun with an accompanying proper name, as in (5.103b), or by a possessive PP, as in (5.103c). (5.103) NORWEGIAN a. søster mi sister my.F.SG ‘my sister’ c.

b.

søster hennes Kari sister hers Kari ‘Kari’s sister’

søster åt jent-a sister to girl-DEF ‘the girl’s sister’

The construction type exemplified in (5.103a), with a pronominal possessor following a suffixless kinship term, used to have a very wide distribution in Scandinavian—it was only missing in Denmark and in the southernmost parts of Sweden (Delsing 2003b).35 In present-day Norwegian there is much variation with respect to the use of this construction, though. For some speakers the 33 The example is taken from an article by Arne Horge in the newspaper Klassekampen,

27.07.2003. 34 Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2003b) reports that the construction is also mentioned in early 20th century descriptions of Swedish. 35 The statement in Delsing (2003b) that in most parts of Norway, kinship terms normally have a suffixed definiteness marker when they are followed by a possessor, is not correct. An informal investigation revealed that today, far min “father my” is accepted by speakers from Østfold county in the southeast, from Hedmark in the east, from Møre og Romsdal in the west, and from Troms and Finnmark counties in the north. Thus, the construction is found in basically every part of Norway (as one can also infer from Torp 1973). Still, it is not used by all speakers of Norwegian, as mentioned. Although I have not investigated the question systematically, I have the clear impression that it is used more often by speakers with a rural background than by speakers with an urban background, and also more often by older speakers than by younger speakers.

192

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

suffixed definiteness marker is obligatory even with kinship terms. For others the construction without a suffixed definiteness marker is acceptable with mor “mother” and far “father” but not with søster “sister” or bror “brother”. The reason might be that for each possessor there is a unique mother and a unique father but not necessarily a unique sister or brother. In my own speech the kinship terms that can appear without a definite suffixed when they are followed by a possessor are mor “mother”, far “father”, søster “sister”, bror “brother”, datter “daughter” and sønn “son”, plus compounds where one of these terms is the last element. But note that the constructions in (5.103), which also have parallels in Northern Swedish (see Delsing & Egerland 2002), are different from what we saw in (5.100) and (5.102). If an adjective is included in (5.103), it must appear in the definite form, and it must normally be preceded by a definite determiner:36 (5.104) NORWEGIAN den vill-e DEF.SG wild-DEF ‘my wild sister’

søster sisterF

mi my.F.SG

This indicates that the n head is also definite, and the reason for this must be that the n head has a POSS feature and licenses the possessor even here (note the agreement on the possessor). In other words, in some Scandinavian varieties kinship possession leads to definiteness, just like other DP-internal possessor relations. It follows that the difference between constructions like those in (5.103) and (5.104) on the one hand and corresponding constructions with nonrelational possessed nouns on the other is that the n head is spelled out in the latter type but not in the former. In (5.105) I sketch the nP that is found in expressions like those in (5.103a). As noted before, I take all possessive pronouns to carry POSS and φ-features that agree with those of n, regardless of whether all these features are actually visible on the pronoun. This means that in principle, the features of n are always spelled out by the possessive pronoun, even if the φ-features get a zero realisation on invariant possessive pronouns. In addition, the POSS feature of n is identified by the possessed kinship term, which is inherently relational. 36 We have already seen that the definite determiner in front of an adjective can be omitted

under certain conditions. This is no different in DPs with possessed kinship terms. For example, a superlative adjective will allow the preposed determiner to be left out, as in (i), which can be compared to example (2.26) in chapter 2. In (i) the only visible manifestation of definiteness is the suffix on the adjective. (i)

eldst-e søster mi oldest-DEF sister my.F.SG ‘my oldest sister’

193

POSTNOMINAL POSSESSORS

Consequently, the n head need not be spelled out when the possessee has a POSS feature and the possessor is pronominal. (5.105)

nP n Num N [ F] [POSS] søster

Num [SG]

NumP n [ F] [SG] [POSS] Ø

Num

NP D [F] [SG]

N' | N

[POSS] mi

But interestingly, for some speakers the form of the possessor plays a role, such that they accept (5.103a) and (5.103b) but not (5.103c). My interpretation of this fact is as follows. A possessive PP does not agree with or spell out the φ-features of n, not even abstractly. Hence, when n is not spelled out and the possessor phrase is a PP, the φ-features of n do not get a realisation at all. In the dialects that accept (5.103c) alongside (5.103a) and (5.103b), there is no requirement that the φ-features of a possessed n should be spelled out. Having the POSS feature identified by the inherently relational possessee in Spec-nP is sufficient. But for some speakers, there is a requirement that the φ-features of a possessed n should be spelled out. Accordingly, these speakers accept (5.103a) and (5.103b), where the φ-features of n are spelled out by the pronominal possessor, but they reject (5.103c), where the φ-features of n are not spelled out at all. 5.9 The DP level So far, we have only looked at nPs containing postnominal possessors. We will now consider what goes on above nP in nominal phrases with postnominal possessors. In chapter 7, we will see that bare singular nPs can be arguments in Scandinavian. However, these arguments are associated with certain semantic effects. In particular, they emphasise the type of the referent rather than the token. By contrast, the subject DPs of the constructions in (5.106) clearly refer to one specific cat. Hence, I take these subjects to be DPs, and furthermore, their DP projection must have phonologically overt material in it (see chapter 1, section 1.3).

194

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

(5.106) NORWEGIAN a. Katt-a vår tok ein cat-DEF our took a ‘Our cat caught a bird.’

fugl. bird

b.

Katt-a hennes Kari tok ein cat-DEF hers Kari took a ‘Kari’s cat caught a bird.’

fugl. bird

c.

Katt-a åt nabo-en tok ein cat-DEF to neighbour-DEF took a ‘The neighbour’s cat caught a bird.’

fugl. bird

In chapter 2, section 2.2 I argued that if there are no adjectives or numerals in a Norwegian definite DP, nP moves to Spec-DP to give an overt manifestation to the DP projection and thereby to D. I take this to be true also for DP with postnominal possessors. Thus, the possessed nominal phrases in (5.106) have the following structures: (5.107) a. [DP [nP katta vår] D [nP katta vår] ] b. [DP [nP katta hennes Kari] D [nP katta hennes Kari] ] c. [DP [nP katta åt naboen] D [nP katta åt naboen] ] We also saw in chapter 2, section 2.2 that when an αP or CardP appears between nP and D, with an AP or a WQP in its Spec, movement of nP to SpecDP is blocked, due to the defective intervention effect of these prenominal modifiers. In these cases, D gets its own phonological realisation and appears as a prenominal determiner. The examples given in (5.13), (5.30a), (5.37), (5.63) and (5.104) have already shown that nominal phrases containing postnominal possessors are not different from other nominal phrases in this respect. In (5.108) I give two additional examples, one with an adjective in front of the possessed noun and another with a numeral in front of the possessed noun. (5.108) NORWEGIAN a. Den svart-e katt-a deira tok ein DEF.SG black-DEF cat-DEF their took a ‘Their black cat caught a bird.’ b.

Dei

tre katt-e-ne deira tok fugl-ar. three cat-PL-DEF their took bird-PL ‘Their three cats caught birds.’ DEF.PL

fugl. bird

POSTNOMINAL POSSESSORS

195

Again, I see no reason to analyse the nominal phrases with postnominal possessors differently from their counterparts without possessors. Accordingly, I take the syntactic structures of the possessed DPs in (5.108) to be as shown in (5.109). (5.109) a. [DP [D den ] [αP [AP svarte ] α [nP [n katt-Num-a] [NumP Num [NP [DP deira] katt ]]]]] b. [DP [D dei ] [CardP [WQPtre ] Card [nP [n katt-e-ne] [NumP Num [NP [DP deira] katt ]]]]] As we see, the postnominal possessor is sitting inside NP, in the position where it is generated. The possessed noun has undergone head movement to n, and it is preceded by the adjective in Spec-αP, or the numeral in Spec-CardP, and the determiner in D. I assume that a similar analysis applies to all DPs with postnominal possessors and with adjectives or numerals in front of the noun, in the ‘double definiteness’ languages Faroese, Norwegian and Swedish. More generally, I take the structure of DPs with a prenominal determiner and a postnominal possessor to be parallel to the structure of corresponding DPs without possessors. In (5.106) and (5.108) the definiteness of the possessed DPs ultimately stems from the licensing of the possessor. As we have seen in this chapter, the presence of a postnominal nongenitive possessor forces the n head to be POSS. When a D head is generated over this n head, the D head will necessarily agree with n, and the result is that D, hence the whole DP, will also be definite. 5.10 Summary Postnominal possessors in Scandinavian are of several different types. What they all have in common is that they are licensed in Spec-NP, the position where they are generated. In the older language, a nonpronominal possessor would appear in the genitive case and be licensed by the noun itself. This situation is to some degree still seen in Icelandic, but there are indications that for some speakers of Icelandic, genitive case is now licensed by n. The Mainland Scandinavian varieties underwent the same change long ago, so that all postnominal possessors, in the varieties that have them, are now dependent on n. More specifically, I propose that they are licensed through agreement with a POSS feature in n. In n, the POSS feature is equivalent to a definiteness feature, and consequently, the possessed phrase as a whole is definite. Moreover, outside of Icelandic and literary Faroese the possessors themselves no longer appear in the genitive case. In some Northern Swedish varieties they have dative case, but a more common realisation of postnominal nonpronominal possessors in the modern Scandinavian languages is as possessive PPs. On my analysis, the preposition is then the spellout of the POSS feature of the possessor. The

196

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

preposition in its turn licenses the case of the possessor DP, a case that is sometimes visible but more often not. Postnominal pronominal possessors are also licensed through agreement with n. But strikingly, although this agreement relation involves φ-features in addition to the POSS feature, it is not a case relation—instead, the pronominal possessor shares the case of the possessee. Because of this, postnominal pronominal possessors do not need to be embedded in a PP in varieties where n has lost the ability to license case. And in some varieties, proper name possessors can be postnominal if they combine with a pronoun that spells out the POSS feature. On my analysis, these pronouns are possessive counterparts of the proprial articles that are seen with proper name arguments in many Scandinavian dialects. We have also seen in this chapter that postnominal possessors can only be coordinated if they bear the same relation to n, and finally, I argued that externally to nP, DPs with postnominal possessors have the same syntax as other definite DPs.

CHAPTER 6 PRENOMINAL POSSESSORS

6.1 Introduction We will now turn to prenominal possessor phrases in Scandinavian DPs. On my analysis, prenominal possessors are generated in Spec-NP, just like postnominal possessors. The surface position of prenominal possessors must then be the result of movement. I will however also argue that certain elements that can accompany nonpronominal prenominal possessors in Scandinavian have not moved from SpecNP. Instead, they are realisations of a head in the functional domain of the possessed nominal. The elements that receive this analysis are the possessive –s and the pronominal elements that show up in the construction that I term the ‘prenominal possessor doubling’ construction. The chapter is organised as follows. The basic facts concerning prenominal possessors in Scandinavian are presented in 6.2. In 6.3 I deal with prenominal possessive pronouns. Among other things, I argue that prenominal possessive pronouns move to Spec-DP in Scandinavian. In 6.4 follows an analysis of the prenominal possessor doubling construction, and in 6.5 I discuss the possessive –s. In 6.6 I turn to a class of nominal constituents that appear inside nominal phrases and look like possessors without actually being possessors. For this reason, I call them ‘pseudopossessors’. My conclusions are summed up in 6.7. 6.2 Prenominal possessors in Scandinavian DPs In Standard Danish and Standard Swedish, pronominal possessors can only appear in prenominal position, as in (6.1) and (6.2). The pattern shown here is also available in Icelandic and Norwegian, and for some speakers of Faroese.1 (6.1)

DANISH mi-n kat my-CG.SG catCG ‘my cat’

1 Other speakers of Faroese accept pronominal possessors only if they are postnominal (see

Delsing & Egerland 2002).

198

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

(6.2)

SWEDISH mi-n katt my-CG.SG catCG ‘my cat’

In Scandinavian outside of Icelandic, nonpronominal possessors can be prenominal if they are accompanied by some element that marks the possessor relation. In Norwegian, one possibility is to have the possessor followed by a pronominal element that agrees with the possessee and has the same form as a reflexive possessive pronoun. An example is shown in (6.3). After Grohmann & Haegeman (2003) I will refer to this construction as ‘prenominal possessor doubling’. (6.3)

NORWEGIAN nabo-en neighbour-DEF.M.SG ‘the neighbour’s cat’

si REFL.POSS.F.SG

katte catF

Within Scandinavian it is also found in the Danish dialects of Jutland. In West Jutlandic dialects we find both the reflexive possessive marker, as in (6.4a), and a nonreflexive possessive pronoun, as in (6.4b). The version with sin is obligatory if the possessor is inanimate (Nielsen 1986). (6.4) a.

b.

WEST JUTLANDIC DANISH (Nielsen 1986:63) Feilberg sin bog Feilberg REFL.POSS.SG book ‘Feilberg’s book’ Jens hans støvler Jens his boots ‘Jens’s boots’

In Danish outside of Jutland, and in Standard Swedish, prenominal nonpronominal possessors are followed by the possessive –s. This construction, which also is an alternative in written Norwegian (especially in Bokmål) and in many dialects of Norwegian and Swedish (Torp 1973, Delsing 2003b), is shown in (6.5). (6.5)

SWEDISH granne-n-s neighbour-DEF-POSS ‘the neighbour’s cat’

katt cat

199

PRENOMINAL POSSESSORS

Another variety of the possessive –s construction is found in Faroese, where the suffix –sa(r)/ –sara can appear on a proper name or kinship term possessor in prenominal position (Lockwood 1977). Two examples are given in (6.6). (6.6) a.

FAROESE ((a) from Lockwood 1977, (b) from Torp 1973) Jogvan-sa(r) bók b. pápi min-sara bátur Jogvan-POSS book father my-POSS boat ‘Jogvan’s book’ ‘my father’s boat’

It appears that –sa(r)/sara differs from the possessive –s only in its phonological form, not in its syntax. When the possessor is prenominal, overt definiteness markers that go with the possessee are absent in most varieties. The Norwegian example in (6.7a) is another illustration of this. But note that if an adjective is added, as in (6.7b), it will carry the so-called ‘weak’ inflection, which can be analysed as an overt reflex of definiteness (see chapter 2, section 2.4.1). In indefinite DPs this marking is missing, as (6.7c) illustrates. (6.7) a.

NORWEGIAN mi katte my.F.SG catF ‘my cat’

b.

mi gaml-e my.F.SG old-DEF ‘my old cat’

katte catF

c.

ei

katte catF

IDF.F.SG

gammal old

‘an old cat’ Moreover, just like nominal phrases with postnominal possessors, which were seen in the preceding chapter, nominal phrases with prenominal possessors cannot be overtly indefinite. The Norwegian examples in (6.8) demonstrate this. (6.8) NORWEGIAN a. * eit mi-tt IDF.N.SG my-N.SG b. * eit IDF.N.SG

forslag proposalN

lærar-en teacher-DEF.M.SG

si-tt REFL.POSS-N.SG

forslag proposalN

200

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

c. * eit IDF.N.SG

[(ein) IDF.M.SG

student ] si-tt student-DEF.M.SG REFL.POSS-N.SG

forslag proposalN It can also be shown that although indefinite DPs can be the associate of an expletive, as in (6.9a), possessed nominals are not allowed in this environment, regardless of whether the possessor is indefinite, as in (6.9b), definite, as in (6.9c), or pronominal, as in (6.9d). That is, all possessed nominals trigger the definiteness effect. But if the possessor is replaced by a nonpossessive PP with a similar meaning, as in (6.9e) and (6.9f), the construction becomes grammatical. (6.9) a.

NORWEGIAN Det vart lagt fram {eit forslag/mange forslag}. it became put forward a proposal/many proposals ‘There was/were a proposal/many proposals put forward.’

b. * Det vart lagt fram ein it became put forward a forslag. proposal c. * Det vart it became forslag. proposal d. * Det vart it became

student si-tt student REFL.POSS-N.SG

lagt fram student-en put forward student-DEF

lagt fram mi-tt put forward my-N.SG

si-tt REFL.POSS-N.SG

forslag. proposal

e.

Det vart lagt fram eit forslag frå ein it became put forward a proposal from a ‘There was put forward a proposal from a student.’

student. student

f.

Det vart lagt fram eit forslag frå student-a-ne. it became put forward a proposal from student-PL-DEF ‘There was put forward a proposal from the students.’

We can conclude that DPs with prenominal possessors are semantically and syntactically definite. Explaining this must therefore be a central objective of the syntactic analysis of the constructions in question.

PRENOMINAL POSSESSORS

201

6.3 Prenominal possessive pronouns In the preceding chapter I argued that in some varieties of Scandinavian, pronominal possessors stay in Spec-NP, where they are generated. As a result, they are postnominal in the surface order, since the head of the possessed nominal moves to n. By comparison, prenominal possessive pronouns must move quite high in the DP, since they will precede numerals and adjectives, as demonstrated in (6.10) and (6.11). (6.10)

DANISH mi-ne tre hvid-e katt-e my-PL three white-DEF cat-PL ‘my three white cats’

(6.11)

SWEDISH mi-na tre vit-a katt-er my-PL three white-DEF cat-PL ‘my three white cats’

In this section, I argue that prenominal possessive pronouns agree with n, just like postnominal possessive pronouns, and that they move to Spec-DP via Spec-nP and also through the Spec of a projection related to possession, called PossP, which is activated when the possessor is not licensed in its base position. 6.3.1 The relation to n The first point I will make is that movement of possessive pronouns to prenominal position proceeds via Spec-nP. Note, firstly, that the nominal phrases in (6.10) and (6.11) get a specific interpretation, and in addition, we have seen that the DP as a whole is definite. Hence, n must have a definiteness feature. This means that even when the possessor shows up in prenominal position there must be a POSS feature in n which agrees with the POSS feature of the possessor, since otherwise n would not have to be definite. My proposal is that in those varieties of Scandinavian where possessive pronouns obligatorily move to prenominal position, the POSS feature in n is strong, so that it attracts the pronominal possessor to Spec-nP.2 With a possessor in 2 The same holds for German, where pronominal possessors precede the noun—see (ia),

whereas a common noun possessor with genitive case will stay in postnominal position—see (ib). (i)a.

mein Haus my house ‘my house’

b. das

Haus des Mannes house DEF.GEN man.GEN ‘the man’s house’ DEF

202

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

Spec-nP, there is no need to spell out the n head, since all the features that could be spelled out in n are shared by the possessor, which will eventually become visible. Consequently, there is no suffixed article on the noun when the possessive pronoun moves to Spec-nP. Notably, spelling out a definite n is not blocked in cases where elements above nP, such as adjectives or determiners, share the features of n and give them a phonological realisation. It follows that the spelling out of n is determined locally, inside nP, before the possessor leaves Spec-nP and moves to even higher positions. In other words, we have another indication that nP is a (strong) phase, in the sense of Chomsky (1999, 2001). It is interesting in this connection to consider nominal phrases with phonologically empty possessors, which are not uncommon in Scandinavian in cases where the possessor can be bound by an antecedent outside the possessed nominal phrase. This was mentioned already in chapter 2, and I give another example in (6.12). (6.12)

SWEDISH Honi skaka-de på [(ei) huvud-et (ei)]. she shake-PAST on head-DEF.N.SG ‘She shook her head.’ or ‘She shook the head.’

Whether the possessor is postnominal or prenominal in this construction (there is the possibility that a phonologically empty possessor stays in its base position, even in the varieties where overt possessors move obligatorily), it is clearly the case that there is no overt possessor in Spec-nP at any stage of the derivation. And strikingly, the suffixed definite article must appear. This is another indication that the absence of the suffixed definiteness marker in (6.10) and (6.11) is due to the movement of the overt possessor. However, there are exceptions to the generalisation that a prenominal possessor precludes the presence of the suffixed article in Scandinavian. For example, in the Skellefteå dialect of Swedish, spoken in the north of Sweden and described in Vangsnes (1999), there are two sets of possessive pronouns: an agreeing set and a nonagreeing set. Thus, for the first person singular we find either the inflected men/mín/mett/mín or the invariant mine. As we see in (6.13), an inflected possessive pronoun requires the possessee to appear in the bare form, whereas an invariant possessive pronoun requires the possessee to have a suffixed definite article.

I take this contrast to reflect the different licensing mechanisms that apply to pronominal possessors and common noun possessors in this language. The genitive possessor gets its case licensed inside nP, while the pronoun is licensed by agreement with n. Accordingly, n will attract the pronoun but not the common noun possessor.

PRENOMINAL POSSESSORS

(6.13) a.

203

SKELLEFTEÅ SWEDISH (Vangsnes 1999:151) men hest(*-n) my.M.SG horse(-DEF.M.SG)

b.

mín my.F.SG

bok(*-a) book(-DEF.F.SG)

c.

mine my

hest*(-n) horse-DEF.M.SG

d.

mine my

bok*(-a) book-DEF.F.SG

This must mean that the invariant nonagreeing possessive pronouns in this dialect do not carry agreement features at all. Presumably, the DPOSS node is absent or inactive, and consequently, the n head must be spelled out when an invariant possessive pronoun moves to Spec-nP. 6.3.2 Focused prenominal possessors In some varieties of Scandinavian, a pronominal possessor preceding the noun is necessarily focused. Solør Norwegian was mentioned in chapter 5, section 5.6.1; another variety that shows a similar pattern is Icelandic (see e.g. Sigurðsson 1993). I give examples from these varieties in (6.14) and (6.15).3 (6.14)

(6.15)

SOLØR NORWEGIAN {HENNES/MI} (vit-e) katte hers/my.F.SG white-DEF catF ‘HER/MY (white) cat (not YOURS)’

(itte DI ) not your.F.SG

ICELANDIC HANS herbergi (ekki MI-TT ) his roomN not my-N.SG.NOM ‘HIS room (not MINE)’

3 However, in Italian (Cardinaletti 1998) and in Catalan and Spanish (Bernstein 2001) a pre-

nominal pronominal possessor has a neutral discourse status while a postnominal one is focused. The contrast between Scandinavian and Romance in this respect is in need of more detailed investigation.

204

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

As noted in the discussion in chapter 5, I assume that these focused possessive pronouns undergo indirectly feature-driven movement through Spec-nP to a higher head that hosts a focus feature.4 Unlike a possessive pronoun, a possessive PP cannot be focus moved or extracted. Neither the whole PP nor the possessor alone, without the preposition, can be moved to the front of its containing DP—see (6.16b) and (6.16c). It is also not possible to move the PP to the front of the clause, as in (6.16d). It is not so bad, however, to move only the possessor, without the preposition, to clause-initial position. I show this in (6.16e). (6.16) a.

NORWEGIAN Eg likar ikkje hund-en til NABO-EN. I like not dog-DEF to neighbour-DEF ‘I don’t like the NEIGHBOUR’S dog.

b. * Eg I

likar ikkje til NABO-EN like not to neighbour-DEF

c. * Eg I

likar ikkje NABO-EN like not neighbour-DEF

d. * Til to

NABO-EN

neighbour-DEF

hund(-en). dog-DEF.

hund(en) til. dog.IDF/dog-DEF to

likar eg ikkje hund(-en). like I not dog-DEF

e. ? Nabo-n likar eg ikkje hund-en til. neighbour-DEF like I not dog-DEF to ‘The NEIGHBOUR’S dog I don’t like.’ A focused non-possessive PP, by contrast, may well be extracted out of a containing DP and moved to clause-initial position. Alternatively, the complement of the preposition may move on its own. I show this in (6.17).

4 In the Bergen dialect of Norwegian, inherently relational HUMAN nouns always attract a pos-

sessive pronoun to prenominal position, while other nouns only do so if the possessor is focused (Ove Lorentz, p.c.). Hence, we get the contrast shown in (i). (i)a. c.

{min/MIN} my/MY

mor mother

katt-en min katt-DEF my

b. * mor(-en) {min/MIN} mother-DEF my/MY d. MIN katt MY cat

PRENOMINAL POSSESSORS

(6.17) a.

205

NORWEGIAN Ho har lesi mange bøker om SYNTAKS. she has read many books about syntax ‘She has read many books about SYNTAX.’

b.

Om SYNTAKS har ho lesi mange bøker. about syntax has she read many books ‘On SYNTAX has she read many books.’

c.

Om SYNTAKS har ho lesi mange bøker. about syntax has she read many books ‘On SYNTAX has she read many books.’

And in Icelandic, where nonpronominal possessors are DPs with genitive case, such possessors can be focus fronted inside the possessed DP, although it is reported to be more acceptable with proper name possessors than with common noun possessors—see the examples in (6.18). Recall that the possessor is licensed in postnominal position, so that moving it to prenominal position has nothing to do with its licensing. (6.18) a.

ICELANDIC (Delsing 1993:158) JÓN-S hús b. ? KAUPMANN-S-INS hús Jón-GEN house merchant-GEN-DEF.GEN house ‘JÓN’s house’ ‘the MERCHANT’s house’

In short, whereas possessive PPs cannot move at all, other possessors may be fronted inside the containing nominal phrase, and other PPs can move to clause-initial position, which is also an option for a possessor embedded under a possessive P. How can this pattern be explained? It seems that there are very specific requirements on elements that undergo focus movement inside their containing nominal phrase. In fact, it seems that focus movement of this kind must target an element that agrees with n and thereby also with the higher heads in the functional domain of the possessed nominal. Presumably, if it does not agree, the focused element will not find a landing place higher up in that functional domain. In the case of pronominal possessors and DP possessors, the focused element is also the element that agrees with n. Consequently, these possessors can undergo focus movement inside the possessed nominal phrase. In the case of a focused possessive PP, on the other hand, it is the P that agrees with n whereas the complement of P bears focus. Since the P is not focused, the PP as a whole is not a target of focus movement, and pied-piping of the PP is not allowed. The possessor itself, without the P, does not agree with n and cannot find a landing place inside the possessed nominal phrase—it will have to move out of that phrase altogether. Finally, if a DP-internal PP is not posses-

206

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

sive, it does not agree with any element inside the larger DP, and it will not be affected by focus movement inside that DP. It is however free to focus move out of its containing DP, and the same is true of the DP complement inside the PP. 6.3.3 The position of prenominal pronominal possessors As for the question of exactly where prenominal possessive pronouns are located in Scandinavian, it has been suggested by several writers that they surface in the DP projection (Giusti 1995, Delsing 1998, Vangsnes 1999). However, Longobardi (1996) proposes that the possessor moves overtly to the Spec immediately below D, while the noun moves covertly to D. Likewise, Schoorlemmer (1998) argues that prenominal possessors are never in Spec-DP but in the Spec of a PossP projection immediately below D. Her claim is based on evidence from languages like Italian, where we find a determiner in front of the prenominal possessor. It seems clear that in (6.19), for example, the possessive pronoun must be sitting in a projection between D and αP. (6.19)

ITALIAN il mi-o grande amico DEF.M.SG my-M.SG great friendM ‘the great friend of mine’

Schoorlemmer then extends the analysis to the Germanic languages, where prenominal possessors are normally not preceded by determiners. Her proposal is that in constructions like (6.20), a phonologically empty Poss head moves to D, and that this is why no determiner can appear in D. (6.20)

ENGLISH (*the/*a) my good friend

As an argument that prenominal possessors in Germanic is not in D, she points to the fact that a prenominal possessor can be preceded by a demonstrative, as in (6.21). (6.21)

GERMAN diese mein-e Büch-er these my-PL book-PL ‘these books of mine’

However, I argued in chapter 4 that demonstratives are located above DP, in a projection termed DemP. If this is correct, the above example is not evidence that a possessive pronoun cannot move to the DP projection.

PRENOMINAL POSSESSORS

207

It is also worth noting that in certain varieties of Scandinavian, a prenominal possessor can precede a D element. For example, in colloquial Danish we find the following: (6.22) a.

b.

COLLOQUIAL DANISH mi-ne de rød-e vante-r my-PL DEF.PL red-DEF glove-PL ‘my red gloves’ all-e mi-ne de rød-e all-PL my-PL DEF.PL sort-DEF ‘all my black ones’

In this construction it cannot be the case that the possessor is located below D. It must be at least as high as Spec-DP. As (6.22b) shows, it is below a strong quantifier. I therefore take it to be in Spec-DP, and I conclude that Schoorlemmer is mistaken—possessors can move to Spec-DP in Scandinavian and probably in all Germanic languages. Another point concerning constructions like (6.22) is that they do not go well with the analysis of pronominal possessors put forth in Delsing (1998, 2003a), according to which these elements are Poss heads that have moved to D. In (6.22), we would take the determiner de to be in D. If the possessor represents the Poss head, it must then have adjoined to D, but this scenario does not seem very likely.5 It is possible, though, that when possessors move to Spec-DP they move through Spec-PossP. In the case of a focused possessor it is likely that the FOCUS feature that attracts a focused possessor out of nP is a feature of the Poss head. Since this head is situated high up in the structure, the focus movement makes the possessive pronoun the closest goal for D, and consequently, the pronoun eventually ends up in Spec-DP. That is, the possessor remains syntactically active after its relations with n and with Poss are established. In particular, its POSS feature is not ‘checked off’. If this is correct, the syntactic structure of (6.14) is as shown in (6.23). In this case, it is the FOCUS feature that allows the possessor to move to Spec-nP and then to Spec-PossP. It is conceivable that the superlative adjective in (1.22), chapter 1, and the PP in (2.68b), chapter 2, also move to Spec-PossP, but then the Poss head cannot have a POSS feature, only a FOCUS feature, so that the designation Poss is less appropriate. Nevertheless, the position could be the same. The adjective and the PP could not be attracted to Spec-DP, how-

5 Delsing (2003b) mentions the construction, but he does not comment on the problems it

presents for the analysis he gives elsewhere.

208

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

ever, so that D gets spelled out instead when adjectives or PPs are in the focus position. (6.23)

DP

MI

[F] [SG] D [FOC] [F] [POSS] [SG] [DEF]

D' PossP MI

Poss'

Poss αP [ F] [SG] AP [FOC] vite [POSS] [DEF] α

α' nP MI

n Num N katte

Num

n' NumP n Num NP [ F] [SG] MI N' [DEF] | N

For those varieties where pronominal possessors are always prenominal, I have already suggested that the possessors move obligatory to Spec-nP. The question that now arises is how it is possible for a non-focused possessor to cross adjectives and numerals, as it must have done in (6.10) and (6.11), for example. My proposal is that nonfocused possessors sitting in Spec-nP are attracted by Poss, and that they can cross adjectives and numerals because Poss targets a possessor. It is possible that this has to do with the POSS feature being interpreted as such only in the possessor and in Poss, and not in the elements that have become definite as a result of agreement with the possessor. In these elements, the POSS feature cannot be distinguished from an ordinary definiteness feature. After movement to Spec-PossP, the possessor will be the closest goal for D, and consequently, the possessor ends up in Spec-DP, while nP stays in place. Once moved to Spec-DP, a possessor will satisfy the requirements of D. The possessor has a nominal category feature, and thanks to its POSS feature, it agrees with the definiteness feature of D. Hence, with a possessor in Spec-DP the D head needs no phonological realisation.

PRENOMINAL POSSESSORS

209

In German, possessive pronouns are prenominal and agree in case with the possessee, so that they are probably very similar to Scandinavian prenominal possessive pronouns syntactically. It is therefore interesting to observe that a focused possessive pronoun in German can optionally be preceded by a definite determiner, as (6.24) shows. (6.24) a.

b.

GERMAN (Giusti 2002:74) Dein-e Fragen wurde beantwortet, mein-e jedoch nicht. your-PL questions were answered my-PL however not ‘Your questions were answered but not mine.’ Dein-e Fragen wurde beantwortet, die mein-en your-PL questions were answered DEF.PL my-PL jedoch nicht. however not ‘Your questions were answered but not mine.’

On my interpretation, the possessive pronoun in the second clause has moved to Spec-DP in (6.24a), but only to Spec-PossP in (6.24b). The latter option must have to do with the focusing of the possessor, and it is an indication that the Poss head hosts a focus feature in these cases, as I have already suggested. Also note that the second possessive pronoun in (6.24b) has a special form (called a strong form in Cardinaletti 1998). Schoorlemmer (1998), who deals mainly with Dutch, where a pronominal possessor always appears in the special form (and with a preposed determiner) if the noun is elided, proposes that the special form is a consequence of the ellipsis. While this is a reasonable suggestion for Dutch, it does not easily carry over to German, where ellipsis of the noun is also possible after a possessive pronoun with regular form, as in (6.24a). It seems more likely that the special form has to do with the position of the possessor. In fact, meinen in (6.24b) carries a marker that otherwise is found in the adjectival inflection paradigm. It is therefore possible that the morphology in question is connected to the domain below D. The remaining question is then why the pronominal possessor can stay in Spec-PossP only if the possessed noun is not spelled out. I will not try to explain this; instead, I will show that the restriction can also be seen at work in Scandinavian. Note first that in Scandinavian, ellipsis of a noun following a possessor does not lead to any change in the form of the possessor or to the presence of determiners. The Swedish example below is an illustration of this fact. (6.25)

SWEDISH Detta är inte mi-na böcker, dom är di-na (böcker). this is not my-PL books they are your-PL books ‘These are not my books, they are yours (your books).’

210

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

It seems to be the case that prenominal possessive pronouns in Swedish, and in Scandinavian in general, move all the way to Spec-DP whether or not they are focused and whether or not the possessed noun is spelled out. But Swedish also has the option of having a determiner in front of a possessive pronoun under very special circumstances. The possessive pronoun must be first or second person or have a reflexive interpretation, the possessee must be phonologically empty, and it must be taken to refer to the possessor’s family or closest relations. Consequently, it will normally trigger plural marking on the possessor. Two examples are seen here: (6.26) a.

b.

SWEDISH Hon är en av de vår-a. she is one of DEF.PL our-PL ‘She is one of our people.’ Hon pratade bara om de si-na. she talked only about DEF.PL 3REFL.POSS-PL ‘She only talked about her family.’

Although apparently related to the German construction shown in (6.24b), the Swedish construction in (6.26) differs with respect to the properties of the phonologically empty possessee. I have no explanation of why the possessive pronoun should be able to stay in Spec-PossP under exactly these circumstances in Swedish. Italian, as seen in (6.19), differs from Germanic in that Italian prenominal possessive pronouns are always preceded by a determiner. This must mean that possessive pronouns never move higher than the PossP projection in Italian. That is, they are either in Poss or in Spec-PossP. The reason for this is easy to see when we consider the fact that the determiner preceding an Italian possessive pronoun can be definite, as in (6.19), or indefinite, as in (6.27). (6.27)

ITALIAN un mi-o grande amico IDF.M.SG my-M.SG great friendM ‘a great friend of mine’

In other words, Italian possessive pronouns are compatible with indefinite and definite D heads. I take this to mean that they do not agree with n or with D. They do not trigger definiteness in n or in D, and it follows that they are probably not licensed by n either. Instead, they are licensed by Poss alone. The

PRENOMINAL POSSESSORS

211

agreement seen on the possessor must then be mediated by Poss.6 Since there is no agreement in definiteness, the possessive pronouns are not attracted to the DP projection, and because of this, D gets its own phonological realisation.7 6.3.4 On spelling out D Although the contrast between Germanic and Italian falls out nicely from my analysis, the construction in (6.22) still seems to pose a problem. If the features of D are spelled out by the possessive pronoun and by the definite determiner simultaneously in (6.22), the features of D are visible both in D and in SpecDP—a situation that my theory seems to predict not to be possible. However, in Danish this situation occurs also when possessors are not involved. On my analysis of definite nominals in Danish, which was presented in chapter 2, section 2.7, the suffixed definite determiner in Danish is a realisation of D, not of n, and it becomes suffixed as a consequence of nP moving to Spec-DP. If nP does not move to Spec-DP, D is spelled out as a prenominal element, and the noun has no suffixed article. My analysis is illustrated below: (6.28) a.

DANISH vante-r-ne gloves-PL-DEF ‘the gloves’

a’.

[DP [nP vante-r ] [D ne ] vanter ]

b.

de

b’.

[DP [D de ] [αP røde [nP vanter ]]]

rød-e vante-r DEF.PL red-DEF glove-PL ‘the red gloves’

This means that in Danish, D is regularly spelled out even if there is overt material in Spec-DP. Accordingly, what we see in (6.21) is another instantiation of the general pattern. 6 Nonpronominal possessors in Italian are postnominal and contained in PPs. Like pronominal

possessors they do not make the DP as a whole definite: (i)a.

l’

amico friendM ‘Antonio’s friend’ DEF.M.SG

di Antonio of Antonio

b. un

amico di Antonio friend of Antonio ‘a friend of Antonio’s’ IDF.M.SG

The explanation could be that even postnominal possessors are licensed through agreement with Poss, although they are not attracted to Spec-PossP. 7 Schoorlemmer (1998) also proposes that the possessor stays in PossP in languages like Italian because it does not share the definiteness feature of D.

212

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

But as Delsing (2003b) observes, in the absence of adjectives or numerals a possessive pronoun cannot co-occur with a definiteness marker. Hence, (6.29a) and (6.29b) are both ungrammatical. (6.29) a.

DANISH mi-ne (*de) my-PL DEF.PL ‘my gloves’

vante-r glove-PL

b. * mi-ne vante-r-ne my-PL glove-PL-DEF

Concerning (6.29b), it is ruled out because nP does not move to Spec-DP when the possessor does, and when nP stays in place, the possessed noun itself cannot be suffixed by a realisation of D. As for (6.29a), the contrast between this example and (6.22) is parallel to the contrast illustrated in (4.8), chapter 4. We saw there that a D head that is preceded by a demonstrative can be spelled out if a prenominal modifier is also present. It now appears that the same holds of a D head that is preceded by a possessive pronoun. The impression one gets is that the greater distance between nP and D that results from the intervening adjective somehow matters for the realisation of D when D is preceded by determiners or possessors, but at present it is not clear to me exactly what the decisive factor is. Certain dialects of Swedish have a pattern much like the Danish one we have just seen. Vangsnes (1999) discusses some of them, including Lappträsk Swedish, where we find expressions like the following ((6.30d) has already been shown as example (4.4) in chapter 4): (6.30) a.

LAPPTRÄSK SWEDISH (Vangsnes 1999:157) hús-e mett house-DEF.N.SG my.N.SG ‘my house’

b. * mett my.N.SG c.

hus-e house-DEF.N.SG

te

stór hús-e mett big house-DEF.N.SG my.N.SG ‘my big house’ DEF.SG

d.

mett te stór hús-e my.N.SG DEF.SG big house-DEF.N.SG ‘my big house’

As we see, when there is no adjective present, a postnominal possessive pronoun but not a prenominal possessive pronoun goes with a suffixed article on

PRENOMINAL POSSESSORS

213

the noun. But if an adjective precedes the noun, both prenominal and postnominal possessive pronouns co-occur with a prenominal determiner and a suffixed article. The suffixed article would never be seen in corresponding Danish constructions, since Danish never spells out n anyway, but apart from this difference, Lappträsk Swedish and Danish appear to be so similar that we would like to see an analysis that holds for both varieties. Vangsnes’ explanation of the Lappträsk pattern is based on the assumption that there can be only one overt manifestation of gender in the DP projection. On his analysis, only the possessed nominal has moved to the DP projection in (6.30a), and the construction is therefore acceptable, even if the possessor also shows gender. In (6.30c) only the prenominal determiner is in the DP projection, and there is no problem. The construction in (6.30b), by contrast, would be derived by moving the possessed nominal to D and the possessor to SpecDP, which is out since both elements have overt gender. But since the prenominal determiner does not show any gender distinction in this dialect, only a number distinction, it may show up even if the possessor moves to Spec-DP, as in (6.30d). The problem is then cases like the Swedish dialect of Gotland, where patterns like (6.30b) are grammatical, although possessive pronouns as well as preposed and suffixed definiteness markers apparently show gender distinctions: (6.31) a.

GOTLAND SWEDISH (Vangsnes 1999:162) mitt hår-ä my.N.SG hair-DEF.N.SG ‘my hair’

b.

däiras de yng-st their DEF.F.SG young-SUP ‘their youngest girl’

päik-u girl-DEF.F.SG

c.

min läil tosk-båt-n my.M.SG little cod-boat-DEF.M.SG ‘my little cod boat’

According to Vangsnes (1999), the gender agreement on the definiteness markers in this dialect is not rich enough to actually represent a gender distinction. He points out that de, seen in (6.31b) could be feminine singular, neuter singular, or plural, since it only contrasts with the masculine singular dän. He argues fuerther that this contrast, and also the contrast seen in suffixed definiteness markers, represents declension class rather than gender. It follows that the definiteness markers can co-occur with preposed possessive pronouns in Gotland Swedish, since of these two elements only the pronoun is marked for gender.

214

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

However, the pattern we find in colloquial Danish casts doubt on Vangsnes’ analysis, since in Danish, the distinction between neuter and common gender is reflected in all definiteness markers and in inflected possessive pronouns. For example, in (6.32) the possessive pronoun in Spec-DP and the determiner in D are both marked for gender. (6.32)

COLLOQUIAL DANISH mi-n den my-CG.SG DEF.CG.SG ‘my black cat’

sort-e kat black-DEF catCG

I conclude that the account given in Vangsnes (1999) for the Swedish pattern must be rejected, since it cannot be extended to Danish. In my view, there is no absolute ban on spelling out n or D when a possessor has raised through Spec-nP to Spec-DP, regardless of what features are made visible by these elements. The grammar may choose to do so, even if it appears to be a marked option. 6.4 The prenominal possessor doubling construction Nonpronominal possessors can also be prenominal in Scandinavian. In Icelandic, a prenominal nonpronominal possessor will simply appear in the genitive case, as (6.18) showed. In Scandinavian outside of Icelandic, prenominal nonpronominal possessors must be accompanied by some element that marks the possessor relation. In Norwegian, one possibility is to have a reflexive possessive pronoun following the possessor, as in the following: (6.33)

NORWEGIAN jent-a girl-DEF.F.SG ‘the girl’s cat’

si-n REFL.POSS- M.SG

katt catM

As mentioned in section 6.2, I will refer to this construction as the prenominal possessor doubling construction. 8 Although traditionally found in the west and north of Norway, prenominal possessor doubling is now an alternative to postnominal possessor constructions in many (probably most) Norwegian varieties (see Torp 1992). 6.4.1 Two different sin elements According to Delsing (1998, 2003a), the prenominal possessor doubling construction is formed by generating the reflexive possessive pronoun sin in the Poss head, located between D and NP) and then moving sin to D and the pos8 In the literature on Norwegian the term garpegenitiv is often used (see e.g. Torp 1992).

215

PRENOMINAL POSSESSORS

sessor from within NP to Spec-DP. This analysis assigns the following syntactic structure to the expression in (6.33): (6.34)

[DP [ jenta ] [D sin ] [PossP jenta [Poss sin [NP katt jenta ]]]

I agree with Delsing that sin in (6.33) represents a head in the functional domain of the possessed noun. The fact that sin is not necessarily duplicated when possessors are coordinated, as seen in (6.35), speaks in favour of such an analysis. (6.35) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN (ho) Kari og (ho) Gunn she Kari and she Gunn ‘Kari and Gunn’s proposal’

si-tt

forslag REFL.POSS-N.SG proposalN

lærar-en og student-en si-tt forslag teacher-DEF.M and student-DEF.M REFL.POSS-N.SG proposal ‘the teacher and the student’s proposal’

The contrast demonstrated in (6.36) is also illuminating. In (6.36a), where the reflexive possessive marker occurs only once, the whole expression preferably refers to one set of children, which then must be both Jan’s and Maria’s. In (6.36b), by contrast, where each possessor is followed by a reflexive possessive marker, on the preferred interpretation reference is made to two sets of children. This indicates that two possessed DPs are coordinated, not just two possessors, and that the possessed noun in the first conjunct is phonologically empty. The possibility of having the overt possessee following the first possessor, as in (6.36c), is further evidence that we are dealing with ellipsis—in the latter case the ellipsis is found in the second conjunct. (6.36) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN (cf. Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2003a:674) Jan og Maria si-ne barn Jan and Maria REFL.POSS-PL children ‘Jan and Maria’s children [together]’ Jan si-ne barn og Maria Jan REFL.POSS-PL children and Maria barn children ‘Jan’s and Maria’s children [two sets]’

si-ne REFL.POSS-PL

216

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

c.

Jan si-ne barn og Maria Jan REFL.POSS-PL children and Maria barn children ‘Jan’s children and Maria’s’

si-ne REFL.POSS-PL

But this means that the analysis that I have given of Scandinavian possessive pronouns cannot be extended to the reflexive element sin that appears in the prenominal possessor doubling construction. Actually, Norwegian has a reflexive possessive pronoun sin that can be prenominal or postnominal and appears without an accompanying possessor nominal. Moreover, it can be coordinated with other possessive pronouns. In short, it has the same syntax as ordinary possessive pronouns, except that it must be bound by a third person antecedent. The properties of this sin are shown in (6.37). (6.37) a.

NORWEGIAN {OKKari/*eg} er glad i si-n Kari/I is fond of 3REFL.POSS-M.SG ‘Kari/*I is fond of her (own) cat.’

katt. catM

b.

{OKKari/*eg} er glad i katt-en si-n. Kari/I is fond of cat-DEF.M.SG 3REFL.POSS-M.SG ‘Kari/*I is fond of her (own) cat.’

c.

Ho la fram si-tt og mi-tt she put forward 3REFL.POSS-N.SG and my-N.SG forslag. proposalN ‘She put forward her (own) and my proposal.’

I assume that just like other possessive pronouns, this sin is generated in SpecNP and can move through Spec-nP and Spec-PossP to Spec-DP. However, the sin that appears in the prenominal possessor doubling construction is different. It must always be preceded by a possessor phrase, and moreover, this possessor phrase can be a first or second person possessive pronoun. As Delsing (2003b) notes, constructions like (6.38a) are found in some Norwegian dialects, and one of my informants, a speaker of a Northern Norwegian dialect, in fact prefers to include si in (6.38b), following coordinated pronouns. Further, a first or second person nonpossessive pronoun can precede sin without problems if that pronoun is coordinated with a nonpronominal possessor—see (6.38c).

217

PRENOMINAL POSSESSORS

(6.38) NORWEGIAN (various dialects) a. ? mi-n si-n katt my-M.SG REFL.POSS-M.SG catM ‘my cat’ b.

mi og di ?(si) katte my.F.SG and your(SG).F.SG REFL.POSS.F.SG catF ‘my and your cat’

c.

meg og lærar-en si-tt forslag me and teacher-DEF.M.SG REFL.POSS-N.SG proposal ‘me and the teacher’s proposal’

These facts suggest that the sin that shows up in the prenominal possessor doubling construction is different from other possessive pronouns. In addition, the examples above demonstrate that other possessive pronouns are not too different from nonpronominal possessor phrases. 6.4.2 The syntax of the doubling construction There is no doubt that the pronoun sin in the prenominal possessor doubling construction is not a part of the possessor phrase. As demonstrated in Fiva (1987), the possessor can be extracted, leaving sin behind, as in (6.39a), but the possessor and sin cannot be extracted together, as (6.39b) shows.9 An alternative to (6.39a) is to move the whole possessed DP, as in (6.39c). (6.39) a.

NORWEGIAN Kven er dette [kven who is this ‘Whose cat is this?’

b. * [Kven who c.

si-n

] er is

REFL.POSS- M.SG

si-n REFL.POSS- M.SG

dette this

[Kven si-n katt] er who REFL.POSS- M.SG catM is ‘Whose cat is this?’

katt]? catM

[kven sin

dette this

katt]? catM

[kven sin katt]?

9 Note that although the possessor that combines with sin can be extracted out of a predicate,

as in (6.39a), many speakers find it harder to extract it out of an argument—see (i). (i) % Kven såg du [kven si-n who saw you REFL.POSS-M.SG Intended meaning: ‘Whose cat did you see?’

katt]? cat

218

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

If adjectives or numerals are present, sin will precede these elements, as (6.40) demonstrates. (6.40)

NORWEGIAN Kari si-ne to svart-e katt-er Kari REFL.POSS-PL two black-DEF cat-PL ‘Kari’s two black cats’

This indicates that sin is located relatively high up in the possessed DP. My proposal is that sin in the prenominal possessor doubling construction is a realisation of the Poss head, and that the nominal phrase in (6.40) has the syntactic structure shown in (6.41). (6.41)

DP

Kari [POSS]

D' D

PossP Kari

Poss'

Poss CardP [POSS] [PL] to Card' sine Card αP α'

svarte [DEF] α

nP Kari

n'

n Num N katt

Num [PL] er

NumP n

Num

NP Kari

N' | N

I take the possessor Kari to be generated in Spec-NP, as always. I also assume that it has a POSS feature that agrees with a feature of n, since the DP as a

219

PRENOMINAL POSSESSORS

whole is necessarily definite, as (6.9) showed. Also note that the adjective in (6.40) appears in the definite (‘strong’) form, which indicates that n and all functional heads above n are definite. But despite the agreement between n and the possessor, the possessor is not licensed by n. A nonpronominal possessor cannot simply be licensed through agreement with n, as a pronominal possessor can. It needs to have its case licensed inside the possessive DP. In Norwegian, n is no longer a case licenser, as we have seen. It follows that a possessor DP that agrees with n does not get licensed through this agreement relation. One solution would be to merge a preposition with the possessor DP, as we saw in the preceding chapter. But if no preposition is inserted over the possessor DP, the possessor DP must have its case licensed by Poss. Because this case licensing cannot take place across (strong) phase boundaries (Chomsky 2001), the possessor must move out of nP, to Spec-PossP (via Spec-nP). From Spec-PossP it will then be attracted to Spec-DP. As for the Poss head, it shares the gender and number features of Num, just like other heads in the functional domain of the possessee. In addition, it carries a POSS feature. This is no different from the situation we have when a pronominal possessor raises to Spec-PossP and Spec-DP. However, while a possessive pronoun gives the POSS feature an overt realisation, the POSS feature is not visible on proper names and common nouns. Consequently, when a nonpronominal possessor raises to Spec-DP, Poss is spelled out as some form of the reflexive possessive pronoun sin. In this way, the POSS feature as well as the gender and number features that stem from the possessed noun all get an overt realisation. That the fronting of the possessor in the prenominal possessor doubling construction has to do with licensing of the possessor can be seen in Solør Norwegian, where the construction is compatible with focus on the possessor or on the possessee. When a pronominal possessor is fronted, on the other hand, focus is necessarily on the possessor and not on the possessee (otherwise the possessor will be postnominal). This contrast is shown in (6.42). (6.42) a.

SOLØR NORWEGIAN Detta er a KARI this is she Kari ‘This is KARI’s teapot.’

si POSS.F.SG

tekanne. teapotF

b.

Detta er a Kari si TEKANNE. this is she Kari POSS.F.SG teapotF ‘This is Kari’s TEAPOT.’

c.

Detta er NABO-N si tekanne. this is neighbour-DEF.M.SG POSS.F.SG teapotF ‘This is the NEIGHBOUR’s teapot.’

220

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

d.

Detta er nabo-n si TEKANNE. this is neighbour-DEF.M.SG POSS.F.SG teapotF ‘This is the neighbour’s TEAPOT.’

e.

Detta er MI this is my.F.SG ‘This is MY teapot.’

tekanne. teapotF

f. * Detta er mi TEKANNE. this is my.F.SG teapotF ‘This is my TEAPOT.’ Hence, the movement of a nonpronominal possessor to Spec-PossP is not triggered by a FOCUS feature. It simply occurs obligatory when the derivation includes no element that can license the possessor in its base position. We can now understand why the sin that appears in the prenominal possessor doubling construction can combine with first and second person pronominal possessors, whereas the ordinary reflexive possessive pronoun sin needs a third person antecedent. This contrast must have to do with the anaphor property of the latter sin, which forces it to be coreferential with the antecedent. Since sin is third person, its antecedent must also be third person—or more precisely, if third person is really absence of person features (as suggested in chapter 5, section 5.3), the antecedent of the reflexive sin must be void of person features. The former sin, on the other hand, just spells out the POSS feature of Poss plus the number and gender features that agree with those of the possessee. There is no requirement that it should be coreferential with the possessor or with any other antecedent (which means that glossing it as REFL is in reality misleading). Consequently, in the prenominal possessor doubling construction there is no feature clash even if sin is preceded by a first or second person possessor. The reason why the two elements have the same form must be that sin is the least marked element in the lexicon of Norwegian that can spell out POSS plus number and gender but no person. We must then assume that the anaphor property of the pronominal possessor sin has no reflex in its phonological realisation—it too simply spells out POSS plus number and gender. 6.4.3 Some notes on variation If we now go back to the example in (6.38a), the only surprising property of this construction is that the Poss head is spelled out even though the POSS feature is visible on the possessor. In fact, with an inflected possessive pronoun as possessor, sin does not spell out any features that are not also spelled out by the possessor. Accordingly, most adult speakers of Norwegian would leave out sin here. But spelling it out is by no means excluded in my model, in particular as

PRENOMINAL POSSESSORS

221

the possessor is not spelled out in Spec-PossP, but instead in Spec-DP, which means that there is some distance between the two visible instances of POSS. In the following example the possessive marker sine reflects the plural of the possessee, which is not visible in the invariant possessive pronoun deira “their(s)”. Spelling out Poss is thus less redundant here than in (6.38a). (6.43)

NORWEGIAN (dialectal, heard on TV in August 2003) deira si-ne erfaring-e their POSS-PL experience-PL ‘their experiences’

A variant of the pattern in (6.43) is seen in the examples (6.44), which are reported found in the Åsane dialect, spoken near Bergen. As we see, the appropriate form of sin is here preceded by a possessive pronoun and proper name combination. As is common in those Scandinavian dialects that have proprial articles and/or use possessive pronouns with proper names, the kinship terms ‘mother’ and ‘father’ are treated as proper names (cf. chapter 5, fn. 2). Also note that si spells out features (the number and gender of the possessee) that are not overtly marked on the possessor. (6.44) a.

b.

ÅSANE NORWEGIAN (Kopthevskaja-Tamm 2003a:676; cited from Haugseth 1983) i hennar mor si tid in her.POSS‘ mother POSS.F.SG timeF ‘in mother’s time’ i hans far si tid in his father POSS.F.SG timeF ‘in father’s time’

The construction in (6.44) is not very different from what we see in (6.43). I therefore take this pattern to be an option that is in principle open to all grammars that include the prenominal possessor doubling construction. Most speakers of Norwegian would nevertheless use a nonpossessive form of the possessor itself in the prenominal possessive doubling construction. That is, instead of being preceded by a possessive pronoun, a proper name possessor would be preceded by a nonpossessive proprial article or by nothing at all. Conversely, pronominal possessors normally appear in the possessive form and have no accompanying possessive markers. Still, in colloquial speech it sometimes happens that a nonpossessive pronoun is used in a prenominal possessor doubling construction instead of a possessive one. An example is given in (6.45).

222 (6.45)

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

NORWEGIAN (colloquial, heard on radio, May 2004) de sin bydel they POSS.M.SG borough ‘their borough’

In this case the pronominal possessor is treated in a way that is normal for nonpronominal possessors. The result is again less redundant than (6.38a), although highly marked stylistically. The prenominal possessor doubling construction is by no means unique to Norwegian. We have already seen examples from Jutland Danish, and outside of Scandinavian it is known from German (Krause 1999), from Dutch, including Flemish (Haegeman 2003), from Afrikaans (Torp 1992, Grohmann & Haegeman 2003), from Middle English and Early Modern English and from Old French (Grohmann 2003), and, even farther away, from Ossetic (KoptjevskajaTamm 2003a). In all these languages the construction is essentially the same although there is some variation in details. Firstly, while the Poss head is spelled out as a reflexive element in Norwegian, it is realised as a nonreflexive possessive pronoun in the other languages, with the exception of West Jutlandic dialects, where both options are found, as mentioned in section 6.2. The following example illustrates the use of the nonreflexive pronoun: (6.46)

WEST JUTLANDIC DANISH (Nielsen 1986:65) æ kone hendes kyse DEF woman her.POSS bonnet ‘the woman’s bonnet’

Here the possessive pronoun hendes reflects a third person singular feminine possessor, and it can only be preceded by a possessor with matching features. I will nevertheless assume, due to lack of evidence to the contrary, that (6.46) has basically the same syntax as the Norwegian prenominal possessor doubling construction. The only difference is that the element that is inserted in Poss here represents the φ-features of the possessor in addition to the POSS feature, while its Norwegian counterpart has no φ-features other than those of the possessee. For those varieties of West Jutlandic that can use either sin or nonreflexive possessive pronouns in this construction, the specifics of the alternation have to be worked out, but I will leave this aside here. It holds for West Jutlandic as well as for Norwegian, however, that the possessor has no visible case—overt case marking on nouns has been lost in those Danish and Norwegian dialects that make use of the prenominal possessor doubling construction. But in German, where nouns are still case-marked, the possessor in the prenominal possessor doubling construction necessarily has overt case. At an earlier stage it could appear in the genitive case, as in (6.47), but in Modern German it has dative case, as in (6.48). As for the element in

223

PRENOMINAL POSSESSORS

Poss, we see that it shares the case of the possessee. In addition, it is an ordinary nonreflexive possessive pronoun, which follows from the fact that German has no other possessive pronominal elements to choose from. (6.47)

MIDDLE LOW GERMAN (Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2003a:667) mein-es Vater-s sein Buch my-M.SG.GEN father-GEN his.SG.NOM book.SG.NOM ‘my father’s book’

(6.48) a.

GERMAN (adapted from Grohmann 2003, 207–208) Da ist (der) Anna ihr Wagen. there is DEF.F.SG.DAT Anna her.M.NOM carM ‘There is Anna’s car.’

b.

Sie bewundern (der) they admire DEF.F.SG.DAT ‘They admire Anna’s car.’

Anna Anna

ihren Wagen. her.M.ACC car

This shows that the use of the prenominal possessor doubling construction is not necessarily a consequence of losing the genitive case on possessors. It is a consequence of losing the capacity to license a nonpronominal possessor inside nP. That is, a situation arises where none of the heads inside nP is a case licenser any more. Unless a preposition is inserted, a nonpronominal possessor can then only be licensed if the Poss head is activated. The possessor gets attracted to Spec-PossP and later to Spec-DP, and the activated Poss head shows up as a pronominal element. Since this element is the realisation of one of the functional heads in the functional domain of the possessee, it agrees with the possessee in gender, number and case. In some varieties, it also has φ-features that correspond to those of the possessor, while these are absent in other varieties. 6.5 The possessive –s While many speakers of Jutland Danish dialects and of Norwegian make use of the prenominal possessor doubling construction, Standard Danish and Standard Swedish mark prenominal nonpronominal possessors with the possessive –s, as mentioned. This construction, which is also used in written Norwegian (in particular in Bokmål) and in many dialects of Norwegian and Swedish (see e.g. Torp 1973, Delsing 2003b), is shown in (6.49).10

10 In the literature on English this construction is known as the ‘Saxon genitive’.

224

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

(6.49)

NORWEGIAN jent-a-s katt girl-DEF.F.SG-POSS catM ‘the girl’s cat’

In this section, I argue that the more common possessive –s construction is structurally similar to the prenominal possessor doubling construction. However, there are also cases where a possessive –s belongs to the possessor phrase. 6.5.1 The possessive –s and the doubling construction If we compare (6.49) to (6.33), we see that –s can sometimes be used interchangeably with sin. And in (6.50) we see that just like sin, –s allows the preceding possessor to be extracted, but cannot move with the possessor. Example (6.51) shows that –s attaches enclitically to the whole possessor phrase (more examples are found e.g. in Torp 1992 and Delsing 1993, 1998). (6.50) NORWEGIAN (BOKMÅL) a. ? Hvem er dette [hvem who is this ‘Whose cat is this?’

s POSS

b. * [Hvem-s ] er dette [hvem-s who-POSS is this ‘Whose cat is this?’ c.

(6.51)

[Hvem-s katt] er who-POSS catM is ‘Whose cat is this?’

dette this

katt]? catM

katt ]? catM

[hvem-s katt]?

NORWEGIAN (BOKMÅL) en fyr jeg kjenn-er-s a guy I know-PRES-POSS ‘a guy I know’s cat’

katt cat

Because of the similar distribution of sin and –s, Fiva (1987) and Delsing (1993, 1998) conclude that the construction with the possessive –s is structurally identical to the prenominal possessive doubling construction. Krause (1999) reaches the same conclusion for German. I believe that these conclusions are correct, at least for the standard varieties of Scandinavian (we will see some exceptions from various dialects later on). The difference between the two constructions is that while the pronominal element in the prenominal possessor doubling construction spells out, in addition to POSS, the gender and

225

PRENOMINAL POSSESSORS

number (and case) features of Poss that are valued by the possessee, –s only spells out the POSS feature of Poss.11 On my analysis, the syntactic structure of the example in (6.49) is as sketched in (6.52). (6.52)

DP jenta

D' D

PossP jenta

Poss'

Poss nP [POSS] s jenta n Num N katt

Num [SG]

n' NumP

n

Num

NP jenta

N' | N

Here the possessor is in Spec-DP, and it gives the DP projection an overt nominal category feature, while the –s in Poss is the only visible indication of the possessor licensing relation. A complicating factor is seen in Swedish, where a possessor marked with the possessive –s can precede the universal quantifier alla “all”, as (6.53) demonstrates.12 (6.53)

SWEDISH Goodjet-s alla flygning-ar ställ-s Goodjet-POSS all.PL flight-PL put-PASS ‘All of Goodjet’s flights are cancelled.’

in. in

This seems to indicate that the possessive –s must be located higher up than what I have proposed. However, Vangsnes (1999:125 fn. 21) shows that alla in postpossessor position will take low scope with respect to other quantified ele11 Just like sin, the possessive –s is compatible with a first or second person pronominal pos-

sessor. In Danish, and in jocular style in Norwegian, one can hear forms like min-s “my-s”. 12 As noted e. g. by Lyons (1999:44), English has a similar phenomenon in constructions like his/the king’s every whim.

226

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

ments, and he argues that in such cases, the quantifier is in the position where we normally find weak quantifiers.13 Hence, I conclude that alla is located in Spec-CardP in constructions like (6.53), so that the constructions is not evidence that the possessive –s is not in Poss. Concerning the choice between the prenominal possessor doubling construction and the possessive –s, Krause (1999) argues for German that it is determined by the prosodic environment, such that –s follows a possessor that is one prosodic word while sein follows a prosodically larger possessor. The consequence is that –s and sein are in complementary distribution in German. This is not the case in Norwegian, as we have seen. Where both variants are available, the choice between –s and sin has more to do with style—sin being more colloquial that –s. There is however also an animacy effect, such that while –s combines equally well with animate and inanimate possessors, sin is better with animate possessors than with inanimate possessors. For example, while (6.54) is perfectly acceptable in those varieties of Scandinavian that allow the possessive –s at all, the (nonpossessive) construction in (6.55a) will be much preferred to (6.55b).14 (6.54)

NORWEGIAN (BOKMÅL) hus-et-s fram-side house-DEF-POSS front-side ‘the front of the house’

(6.55a) NORWEGIAN (BOKMÅL AND NYNORSK) a. fram-sid-a på hus-et front-side-DEF on house-DEF ‘the front of the house’

13 Vangsnes (1999) also states that alla can co-occur with a weak quantifier when it precedes

the possessor, but not when it follows it, so that we have the following contrast: (i)a.

Alla Goodjet-s femtio flygning-ar Alla Goodjet-POSS fifty flight-PL ‘All of Goodjet’s fifty flights are cancelled.’

b. * Goodjet-s Goodjet-POSS

alla all

femtio fifty

flygning-ar flight-PL

ställ-s in. put-PASS in ställ-s in. put-PASS in

However, some speakers of Swedish accept (ib). One possible explanation is that they can combine ‘all’ and ‘fifty’ into a complex quantifier. 14 In English, the possessive –s has a similar effect to the possessive sin in Norwegian. Lyons (1986:131) notes the following contrast: (i)a. ? I wasn’t keen on the ceiling’s colour. b. I wasn’t keen on the colour of the ceiling.

(ii)a. John’s colour deepened. b.?? The colour of John deepened.

PRENOMINAL POSSESSORS

227

b. ?? hus-et si fram-side house-DEF POSS.F.SG front-sideF ‘the front of the house’ We have already seen that Faroese has its own version of the possessive –s, namely, the suffix –sa(r), which can appear on a proper name or kinship term possessor in prenominal position (Lockwood 1977). It was shown in (6.6), and I repeat the example below as (6.56). (6.56) a.

FAROESE (=(6.6)) Jogvan-sa(r) bók Jogvan-POSS book ‘Jogvan’s book’

b.

pápi min-sara father my-POSS ‘my father’s boat’

bátur boat

As Delsing (1993:154) points out, the suffix –sa(r) is not a genitive case marker, since its form is not influenced by the gender of the possessor, as would be the case with a case marker. Moreover, it is attached as a clitic at the end of the possessor phrase, as (6.56b) shows. I therefore conclude, with Delsing (2003b), that the Faroese –sa(r) corresponds to the possessive –s found in Mainland Scandinavian and English. 6.5.2 A ‘mixed’ construction Now recall that it is possible for a possessor phrase to contain a possessive pronoun and a quantifier. In chapter 5, section 5.5.4, I illustrated this possibility with the following Swedish examples: (6.57) a.

b.

SWEDISH (=5.61) [vår-t all-a]-s ansvar our-N.SG all-PL-POSS responsibilityN ‘the responsibility of us all’ [vår-t båda]-s ansvar our-N.SG both-POSS responsibilityN ‘the responsibility of both of us’

Similar expressions are also found in the other Scandinavian varieties. We will look at them in some detail here, since they differ in interesting ways from other constructions with pronominal possessors. To see more clearly the case properties of a possessor phrase consisting of a pronoun and a quantifier, a natural move is to go to Icelandic. However, since the relevant quantifiers require the pronoun to be a plural, and the ordinary plural possessive pronouns in Icelandic are all of the type that do not show agreement (the forms in question are okkar “our”, ykkar “your” and þeirra “their”),

228

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

the Icelandic counterparts of the above examples are not very informative. As shown in (6.58), ‘of all of us’ will be okkar allra regardless of the case of the possessed phrase as a whole, and we cannot tell whether there are agreement relations that are not spelled out, as I claimed in 5.5.3 to be the situation with morphologically invariant possessive pronouns.15 (6.58) a.

b.

ICELANDIC Framgang-ur okkar all-ra veltur success-M.SG.NOM our.GEN all-PL.GEN depends þessu. this.N.SG.DAT ‘The success of all of us depends on this.’

á on

Ég hugsa um framgang okkar I think about success.MASG.SG.ACC our.GEN all-ra. all-PL.GEN ‘I am thinking about the success of all of us.’

But luckily, Icelandic has the rarely used first person singular possessive pronoun vor, which, unlike okkar, does agree visibly with the possessee: (6.59) a.

ICELANDIC framgang-ur okkar/vor success-M.SG.NOM our/our.M.SG.NOM

b.

um about

framgang success.M.SG.ACC

okkar/vor-n our/our-M.SG.ACC

c.

frá framgang-i okkar/vor-um from success-M.SG.DAT our/our-M.SG.DAT

d.

til framgang-s okkar/vor-s to success-M.SG.GEN our/our-M.SG.GEN

If we now combine vor with the quantifier ‘all’, it turns out that in this complex possessor phrase, vor no longer agrees with the possessee after all. Instead, we get an invariable genitive form:

15 I owe Halldór Sigurðsson lots of thanks for providing me with the Icelandic data presented

in this section.

PRENOMINAL POSSESSORS

(6.60) a.

b.

229

ICELANDIC Framgang-ur vorra all-ra veltur á success-M.SG.NOM our.PL.GEN all-PL.GEN depends on þessu. this.N.SG.DAT ‘The success of all of us depends on this.’ Ég hugsa um framgang vorra I think about success.MASG.SG.ACC our.PL.GEN all-ra. all-PL.GEN ‘I am thinking about the success of all of us.’

This indicates that when a pronominal possessor combines with a quantifier, agreement between the pronominal possessor and the possessee is blocked. But in the preceding chapter, we saw that a possessive pronoun that has a nominal complement can still agree with the possessee, as in the possessive pronoun and proper name construction. Hence, it is not the mere fact that the possessor phrase is syntactically complex that leads to blocking of agreement in (6.60). However, in the possessive pronoun and proper name construction the possessive pronoun is a D that takes the name as its nominal complement. Consequently, the possessive pronoun is the highest head of the possessor phrase. But in the above examples, the quantifier cannot be a part of an extended projection with the possessive pronoun as its highest head. The quantifier would normally appear in Q, which is higher than D. The syntactic structure of a possessor of the form [Pronoun all] must therefore be more elaborate than the possessor phrase in the possessive pronoun and proper name construction. Presumably, the possessive pronoun is embedded in a structure that also gives room for a QP, so that we have the following: (6.61)

[XP [DP [D Pronoun]] [QP Quantifier]]

Agreement between the possessive pronoun and the possessee would now require the whole XP to agree with the possessee. But at least in Icelandic, this is not possible, and instead, the whole possessor phrase is licensed by virtue of carrying genitive case, just like ordinary non-pronominal possessors. The same blocking effect is also seen in Danish. In Danish, a neuter noun like problem will trigger neuter marking on the pronominal possessor vor “our”, as in (6.62a), unless the possessor shows up in its non-agreeing form vores, shown in (6.62b), which is compatible with possessors of all numbers and persons. (In fact, vores is much more frequent than vort. A search on the web returned 134 hits for “vort problem” but 4350 for “vores problem”!)

230

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

Anyway, the common gender form vor will not be used here, as shown in (6.62c). (6.62) a.

DANISH vor-t problem our-N.SG problem ‘our problem’

b.

vores our

problem problem

c. * vor problem our.CG.SG problem ‘our problem’ But when there is also a quantifier in the possessor phrase, the possessive pronoun can show up in its common gender form even if the possessee is neuter. I give an example of this in (6.63a). Searching for “vor alles” (and limiting the search to pages in Danish!) I found this and several other examples with neuter possessees. A search for “vort alles”, by contrast, with a neuter possessive pronoun, returned only 3 hits. I think this is significant. And equally striking is the fact that even when the possessive pronoun shows up in its plural form, the possessee can be singular, as in (6.63b). Hence, the plural form here must be due to the plurality of the quantifier, which again is due to the inherent plurality of vor. (6.63) a.

b.

DANISH vor alle-s problem our all-POSS problem ‘the problem of all of us’ vor-e all-e-s favorit Brad Pitt our-PL all-PL-POSS favourite Brad Pitt ‘Brad Pitt, the favourite of all of us’

In Norwegian, where pronominal possessors can be prenominal or postnominal, a pronominal possessor that combines with a quantifier must nevertheless be prenominal: (6.64) a.

NORWEGIAN vår framtid our future ‘our future’

b.

framtid-a framtid-DEF.F.SG ‘our future’

vår our

PRENOMINAL POSSESSORS

c.

231

vår all-e-s framtid our all-PL-POSS future ‘the future of us all’

d. * framtid-a future-DEF.F.SG

vår our

all-e(-s) all-PL-POSS

Most likely, the reason for this is that the complex possessor cannot be licensed through agreement between the possessive pronoun and the possessee. It must be licensed by the Poss head. Consequently, the possessor cannot stay in postnominal position. It must move out of nP and end up in front of Poss, which gets spelled out as the possessive –s. The possessor as a whole will carry a POSS feature, which is sometimes manifested in the form of the pronominal part, and it may also happen that the pronoun picks up the gender and number features of the possessee. However, although the latter agreement relation seems to be available in Norwegian and Swedish, it is dispreferred. Searching the web for “vår alles” (Norwegian) or “vår allas” (Swedish), with the possessor in the affixless masculine/feminine singular form, gave thousands of hits, but when the search was repeated with the pronoun in a suffixed form (neuter singular –t or plural –e/–a, or the Swedish suffixed common gender form våran), the number of hits ranged from a handful to a couple of hundreds. I did not find any cases of vår in front of a neuter or plural possessee, so it appears that the construction under discussion here is simply avoided by many speakers of Norwegian and Swedish if the possessee is not compatible with the form vår. Also note that I said that the POSS feature is sometimes manifested in the form of the pronominal part of the possessor. As it turns out, the pronominal form can alternatively have its non-possessive, non-nominative form. To illustrate, the Swedish example in (6.57b) can be compared to the following one: (6.65)

SWEDISH för oss båda-s skull for us both-POSS sake ‘for the sake of both of us’

Here the possessor [oss båda] must be licensed in the same way as ordinary non-pronominal possessors. The only difference is that the non-nominative case that goes with being licensed by Poss is visible on the pronoun, whereas a noun in the same position would have no visible case. Similar alternations between possessive and non-possessive forms can be observed for second and third person plural pronouns in Swedish, as well as for plural pronouns of all persons in Danish and Norwegian. At present, it seems that the possessive forms have a certain dominance, at least on the web, but

232

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

more fieldwork is needed to find out whether this is also true of the spoken language, and whether there is any change going on in this respect. We might now expect that at least when the possessive pronoun is third person, the –s in the Norwegian examples could be replaced by the ‘reflexive’ possessive marker sin. However, searching the web for strings like “PRONOUN ALL/BOTH sin” I found only one relevant example:16 (6.66)

NORWEGIAN (BOKMÅL) Hun er din egen, she is your.CG.SG own.CG.SG sin. POSS.CG.SG ‘She is your own, and ours all.’

og oss and us

all-e all-PL

In addition, the speakers of Norwegian I have consulted report that they dislike to have sin instead of –s in the construction under discussion here. There might be a syntactic reason for this, but at present I do not see what it is. Given that we have combinations like min sin “my sin” (in (6.38), deira sine “their sinPL” (in (6.43)), and de sin “they sin” (in (6.45)), with a pronominal possessor followed by sin, we would expect, I believe, that it should also be acceptable to have sin after a phrase that contains a possessive pronoun plus something else. Since possessive pronouns can be blocked from agreeing out of such phrases, as we have seen, the problem with spelling out Poss as sin is not likely to be that the same features then get spelled out on elements that are too close syntactically. So for the time being, I am inclined to think that the degraded status of constructions like oss/vår alle sin “us/our all sin” has to do with style: vår alles “our all-POSS” has a certain bookish flavour, and is associated with an originally Danish-influenced type of Norwegian, whereas sin belongs to the popular language. It might be relevant in this connection that I have not found any examples of [Pronoun Quantifier-s] with the specifically Nynorsk pronouns dykk “you.PL”, dykkar “your.PL”, dei “they” or deira “their”. Since Nynorsk is to a large extent based on the speech of the rural population, the absence of [Pronoun Quantifier-s] constructions with Nynorsk lexical items is another suggestion that the construction belongs to the more Danish-like end of the Norwegian language continuum. This could then be the reason why it does not combine happily with sin.

16 In all the other examples I found on the web, the [Pronoun Quantifier] string was not in the

same DP as sin: (i)

Han gir oss all-e sin he gives us all-PL POSS.M.SG ‘He gives us all his peace.’

fred. peace

PRENOMINAL POSSESSORS

233

6.5.3 A different possessive –s In all the examples we have seen so far in this section, the possessee has no definiteness marking when a possessor with a possessive –s precedes it. But just like prenominal pronominal possessors allow n to be spelled out as a definiteness marker in some varieties of Scandinavian, there are also varieties that have definiteness markers on the possessee in the possessive –s construction. Delsing (2003b) gives the example in (6.67), with a common noun possessor, and the example in (6.68), with a proper name possessor.17 (6.67)

FINLAND SWEDISH (Delsing 2003b:27) flicka-n-s hus-et girl-DEF-POSS house-DEF ‘the girl’s house’

(6.68)

NORTHERN SWEDISH (Delsing 2003b:35) Per-s hus-et Per-POSS house-DEF ‘Per’s house’

In these constructions, the possessive –s could still be analysed as a realisation of Poss. The presence of the definiteness marker on the noun is then just another illustration of my claim that spelling out n when a possessor has passed through Spec-nP is subject to variation. However, in certain constructions found in various Mainland Scandinavian varieties a different analysis of the possessive –s appears to be required. Consider the following examples, from colloquial Danish and from Swedish as spoken in Finland: (6.69)

COLLOQUIAL DANISH (Delsing 2003b:26) nabo-en-s den stribede kat neighbour-DEF-POSS DEF.CG.SG striped cat ‘the neighbour’s tabby cat’

(6.70)

FINLAND SWEDISH (Delsing 2003b:27) Fina-s te rö märr-n Fina-POSS DEF.SG red mare-DEF ‘Fina’s red mare’

In these examples, the –s suffix on the possessor precedes a prenominal definiteness marker. If the latter is a realisation of D, the possessive –s cannot be the spellout of the Poss head in the functional domain of the possessed noun. 17 See also Holmberg & Sandström (1996a).

234

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

Also recall that in Lappträsk Swedish, a dialect spoken in Finland, possessive pronouns appear in the same frame as the suffixed possessor in (6.70)— see (6.30d) above and the following example: (6.71)

FINLAND SWEDISH (Delsing 2003b:27) menn te rö märr-n my.CG.SG DEF.SG red mare-DEF.CG.SG ‘my red mare’

This could be taken as an indication that the possessive –s in (6.70) belongs to the possessor phrase. In fact, I think it can be seen as a counterpart to the possessive pronoun that appears with proper name possessors in many other Scandinavian dialects, except that it lacks the pronominal part. In chapter 5, section 5.5 I proposed that a possessive pronoun is made up of a D element and a DPOSS element, and that when it combines with a proper name possessor, the syntax of the construction is as shown in (6.72). (6.72)

DPOSSP DPOSS D henne

DPOSS s

DP D

nP Kari

For the possessor in (6.69) my proposal is that the possessive –s represents the POSS feature of DPOSS. Since this is Danish, the definiteness marker represents the D of the possessor phrase. Hence, the possessor is derived from the structure sketched in (6.73). I further assume that nP moves to Spec-DP and the DP moves to Spec-DPOSSP. As a result, the definiteness marker and the possessive marker end up suffixed to the head noun. (6.73)

DPOSSP DPOSS DP s D nP en nabo

My analysis of the possessor in (6.70) is similar. The possessive –s is the realisation of DPOSS in the possessor phrase, and it becomes suffixed to the

PRENOMINAL POSSESSORS

235

proper name as a result of movement. Moreover, dialects that have constructions like (6.70) would also have constructions like (6.67) in cases where the possessed nominal does not take other modifiers than the possessor. Hence, the possessive –s could be seen as a part of the possessor phrase in (6.67) and possibly also in (6.68), even if these expressions in themselves do not force such an analysis, since the only visible definiteness marker here is probably a realisation of n. Given my analysis, it is clear that constructions like (6.68) and (6.70) are in competition with the possessive pronoun and proper name construction. It is therefore interesting to note that according to Delsing (2003a) it is precisely the possessive –s constructions presently under discussion that are found in dialects that have proprial articles but not the possessive pronoun and proper name construction. This must mean that in these dialects, the possessive counterpart to the proprial article attracts the head noun, thereby ending up as a suffixed possessive marker. The raising of the head noun in possessor phrases is then the main difference between these dialects and dialects that have proprial articles and also use possessive pronouns with proper name possessors. Another interesting observation concerning the possessive –s that co-occurs with a definite article on the possessee is that it does not attach to complex possessor phrases, according to Torp (1973) (who discusses Norwegian dialects with similar constructions) and Delsing (2003b). Now if the possessive –s belongs to the possessor phrase in these varieties, as I have suggested, and becomes suffixed as a result of repeated movement of complements to Spec, it is not surprising that a complex possessor phrase cannot have a suffixed –s, if the internal complexity blocks movement in a similar way here as in other definite Scandinavian DPs. Holmberg & Sandström (1996a) propose that a possessive –s on a prenominal possessor always represents a head in the functional domain of the possessed noun, called AgrG in their terminology. They assume that AgrG, which corresponds to Poss in other frameworks, moves to D, that the possessor moves to Spec-DP, and also that a noun with a suffixed definite article must have its definiteness checked by D. For them, the presence of the suffixed article in constructions like (6.67) is then a problem—the question is where the possessee gets its definiteness checked when it cannot move to the DP projection. They suggest that the visibility of AgrG plays a role in such cases. According to them, pronominal possessors, which do not combine with a spelled-out AgrG in their model, do not appear with a suffixed noun in the dialects where constructions like (6.67) and (6.68) are found.18 But as we have seen, this is

18 In support of their claim they mention that one of their informants accepts a possessive

pronoun in front of a possessee with a definiteness suffix as long as the possessive pronoun has an extra –s, as in (i). However, it is not necessarily the case that this –s represents the Poss head. It could also be internal to the possessor phrase. In colloquial Norwegian, the form

236

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

not a valid generalisation—consider the example from Gotland Swedish in (6.31a) and from Finland Swedish in (6.71). However, if it holds for Northern Swedish dialects that they have definiteness marking on the noun when the possessor is an –s-marked nonpronominal but not when it is pronominal, it is easy to explain in my model. Pronominal possessors share all the morphosyntactic features of n, and they often spell out the number and gender of the possessee. The possessive –s, on the other hand, does not spell out the gender and number of the possessee. The only way to give these features an overt realisation when the possessor carries a possessive –s is then by spelling out the n that goes with the possessee. Holmberg & Sandström (1996a) also address constructions like (6.74), where the –s-marked proper name possessor follows the possessee instead of preceding it. This variant is found in several Northern Swedish dialects (cf. Delsing 2003b), and according to Torp (1973) it has also been reported found in the south of Norway (mainly in the Agder/Telemark area). (6.74)

NORTHERN SWEDISH bil-n Janne-s car-DEF Janne-POSS ‘Janne’s car’

For Holmberg & Sandström the postnominal position of the possessor shows that the possessive –s is not the spellout of AgrG, and they conclude that the suffixed –s is base-generated on the possessor. I agree with this conclusion— again, I take the possessive –s to be closely related to the possessive pronouns that appear with proper name possessors in other Scandinavian varieties. On this approach, the fact that the construction in (6.74) is only seen with proper name possessors in many dialects, or with kinship terms used as proper names, as Holmberg & Sandström report, falls into place. On my analysis, the only difference between (6.74) on the one hand and (6.67) and (6.68) on the other is that the possessor has moved out of Spec-nP in (6.67) and (6.68) but not in (6.74). In all these cases, the possessive –s is a realisation of a POSS feature that belongs to the possessor phrase. In the standard languages, on the other hand, the possessive –s is a realisation of a POSS feature on a head in the functional domain of the possessee. Thus, we see that although the syntactic environment can vary considerably, we are dealing with one single lexical item, which is specified to spell out a POSS feature.

hanses can appear in postnominal position, as (ii) shows. Since the extra –s clearly belongs with the possessor in (ii), it could also do so in (i). (i)

hans-es bil-en his-POSS car-DEF

(ii)

bil-en car-DEF

hans-es his-POSS

PRENOMINAL POSSESSORS

237

6.6 Pseudopossessors We have seen in this chapter and in the preceding chapter that with the possible exception of Icelandic, possessed DPs in Scandinavian are definite. This holds regardless of whether the possessor is definite or indefinite, and I have attributed the effect to the presence of a POSS feature in n, which is in reality a definiteness feature. Moreover, when the possessor is in prenominal position, there is either no preposed determiner at all, as in Norwegian and Standard Swedish, or else there is a definite determiner that follows the possessor, as in colloquial Danish and in various Swedish dialects. Constructions like those in (6.75) therefore appear to be at odds with everything I have said so far about prenominal possessor phrases in Scandinavian. Here an element that looks like a possessor is in prenominal position, and it is preceded by a determiner, which moreover is indefinite, so that the possessed phrase as a whole must also be indefinite. That the determiner goes with the head noun and not with the –s-marked constituent is seen from the fact that the determiner will have the gender of the former, if it is different from the gender of the latter. For example, helvete “hell” in (6.75a) is a neuter word, but the determiner has common gender, which must stem from röra “mess”. In (6.75b) we also see that an –s-marked constituent in the plural can be preceded by an indefinite determiner in the singular. This is another indication that the determiner does not belong with the –s-marked constituent. (6.75) a.

b.

SWEDISH en helvete-s IDF.CG.SG hellN-s ‘a fucking mess’

röra messCG

en

sex timm-ar-s resa six hour-PL-s journey ‘a journey of six hours’ IDF.CG.SG

c.

en

plikt-en-s IDF.CG.SG duty-DEF-s ‘a man of duty’

man man

However, it turns out that the –s-marked elements in these examples are not really possessors; that is, their relation to the head noun is not like any of the relations that were mentioned in the introduction to chapter 5. In fact, it is not clear that the elements in question are referential at all, so they cannot possibly refer to a part of the head noun, something controlled by the head noun, etc. Their ability to appear in indefinite DPs follows from their not being possessors, and so do other syntactic properties that I will demonstrate below.

238

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

In the linguistic literature there is no established name for constituents of the type we are looking at now. In Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2003b), which to my knowledge is the most detailed treatment of them to date, they are called ‘nondeterminer genitives’. My objection to this is that since the possessive –s is not a genitive case marker in the first place, –s-marked elements that are not possessors should not be referred to as genitives either. In addition, KoptjevskajaTamm suggests a contrast between the latter and possessor phrases that function as determiners. I do not take –s-marked possessor phrases to be determiners, even if they appear in the DP projection, so I think the ‘non-determiner’ part of Koptjevskaja-Tamm’s term is inappropriate as well. For lack of a better label I will use the term ‘pseudopossessors’ to refer to DP-internal elements that have the shape of possessors without being actual possessors. As Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2003b) demonstrates, there are (at least) three types of pseudopossessors in Scandinavian: the swearword type, exemplified in (6.75a), the measure type, shown in (6.75b), and the characterising type, shown in (6.75c). I will discuss each of these types in turn. I will cite many of Koptjevskaja-Tamm’s Swedish examples, but I will also add some Norwegian examples, since the facts are similar in these two varieties of Scandinavian. 6.6.1 Swearword pseudopossessors Swearword pseudopossessors are expressions like ‘hell’s’, ‘Satan’s’, and the like. Strikingly, if a noun that combines with a swearword pseudopossessor is definite, it will have both a preposed and a suffixed definiteness marker in Standard Swedish and in Norwegian, that is, in varieties where an ordinary –smarked possessor never co-occurs with any of these elements. The example in (6.76a) shows this. Moreover, the swearword pseudopossessor can be preceded by a real possessor, as in (6.76b), and even by an adjective, as in (6.76c). Alternatively, the adjective can follow the swearword pseudopossessor, as in (6.76d). (6.76) a.

SWEDISH den helvete-s DEF.CG.SG hell-s ‘the damn car’

bil-en car-DEF

b.

{min/Peter-s} helvete-s my.CG.SG/Peter-POSS hell-s ‘my/Peter’s damn car’

c.

den

lilla little.DEF ‘the little damn car’ DEF.CG.SG

helvete-s hell-s

bil car-DEF

bil-en car-DEF

PRENOMINAL POSSESSORS

d.

den

helvete-s hell-s ‘the damn little car’ DEF.CG.SG

lilla little.DEF

239

bil-en car-DEF

While the adjectives in the examples above appear in the definite form, they will have the indefinite form if the determiner is indefinite—see the examples in (6.77). Hence, it is clear that the swearword pseudopossessor does not trigger definiteness marking on any other constituent inside the larger DP. (6.77) a.

b.

SWEDISH en liten DEF.CG.SG little.IDF ‘a little damn car’ en

helvete-s hell-s ‘a damn little car’ DEF.CG.SG

helvete-s hell-s

bil car

liten little.IDF

bil car

In (6.78) I show that a swearword pseudopossessor can co-occur with a postnominal possessor in varieties that have them, and it can also be preceded by a demonstrative. (6.78)

NORWEGIAN denne helvete-s arroganse-n this hell-s arrogance-DEF ‘this bloody arrogance of his’

hans his

Another property of the Scandinavian swearword pseudopossessors, also noted by Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2003b), is that they can function as degree markers together with adjectives and adverbs. I show this in (6.79) with Norwegian examples. (6.79) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN eit aller helvete-s IDF.N.SG of.all hell-s ‘a damn terrible noise’ Ho sprang (så) helvete-s she ran so hell-s ‘She ran (so) damn fast.’

forferdelig leven terrible noise

fort. fast

These examples may give the impression that swearword pseudopossessors can project complex phrases. However, the element aller in (6.79a), which we saw

240

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

before as an intensifier with superlatives in several examples in chapter 2, section 2.4.2, cannot appear freely with any swear-word pseudopossessor, only with helvetes, so it seems more correct to say that aller helvetes is listed in the lexicon as a stronger alternative to helvetes. Concerning the degree marker så “so” in (6.79b), it may well be related to the adverb fort “fast” rather than with helvetes. In short, there are no good examples of swearword pseudopossessors projecting their own complex phrases. According to Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2003b) their inability to project complex phrases and their lack of adjectival morphology are the only properties that set swearword pseudopossessors off from ordinary adjectives. In every other respect, swearword pseudopossessors behave like adjectives syntactically. This seems to be a correct conclusion. We also see that swearword pseudopossessors are located in that area of the DP where we normally find adjectives. From the fact that a DP containing a swearword pseudopossessor can also include a real possessor, as in (6.76b) and (6.78), we can deduce that the pseudopossessor is not generated in Spec-NP, the position where real possessors originate. My proposal is that swearword pseudopossessors are generated in the Spec of an α head, just like ordinary adjectival phrases.19 Their lack of theta role, and in fact of reference, is then expected. Furthermore, it follows that the suffixed –s they carry is not a realisation of the Poss head in the functional domain of the head noun. Since the elements in question are not interpreted as possessors, it cannot be the realisation of a POSS feature belonging to the element that it attaches to either. Rather, it appears that the final –s of swearword pseudopossessors can best be characterised as a marker of denominal adjective formation. Its likeness to the possessive –s is then due to a common origin as a genitive case marker. There is no doubt that the two are different in the modern Mainland Scandinavian languages, since expressions like those shown above are quite natural even in dialects that do not mark real possessors with –s at all. Also note that if the –s of a swearword pseudopossessor is replaced by the ‘reflexive’ possessive marker sin, the meaning of the construction changes considerably. Take a look at the examples in (6.80). In (6.80a) a swearword pseudopossessor is preceded by a determiner and followed by a noun that carries a suffixed definiteness marker. In other words, satans appears in a syntactic frame that adjectives would also appear in. Moreover, it is not interpreted as a possessor. But in (6.80b) Satan must be interpreted as a possessor, either literally or metaphorically. The initial element det cannot then be a determiner; instead, it must be interpreted as a demonstrative—recall that Scandinavian prenominal possessors can be preceded by demonstratives but not by determiners. Finally, as we would expect if Satan is a real possessor, the head noun cannot have a suffixed definiteness marker. 19 Holmberg (1993) also suggests that swearword pseudopossessors may be generated in

adjective position.

PRENOMINAL POSSESSORS

(6.80) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN det satan-s DEF.N.SG Satan-s ‘the fucking asshole’

241

rass-høl-et ass-hole-DEF.N.SG

det Satan sitt rass-høl(*-et) that Satan POSS.N.SG ass-hole(-DEF) ‘that Satan’s asshole’

All these differences between the two examples show that the suffixed –s in (6.80a) must be syntactically very different from sin in (6.80b). But we have seen earlier that the possessive –s in Norwegian has the same syntax as the possessive marker sin. Hence, the suffixed –s in (6.80a) is not identical to the Norwegian possessive –s. 6.6.2 Measure pseudopossessors The second type of pseudopossessors is called ‘measure genitives’ in Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2003b), but I will refer to them as ‘measure pseudopossessors’. One example was given in (6.75b); two others follow below. (6.81) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN ei ti liter-s IDF.F.SG ten litre-s ‘a bucket of ten litres’

bøtte bucket

ein

tre-år-s hingst three-year-s stallion ‘a three year old stallion’ IDF.M.SG

As these examples suggest, measure pseudopossessors are –s-marked elements that express measurements like size, weight, age, duration and distance. Like swearword pseudopossessors, they do not make the larger nominal phrase definite, and they are therefore compatible with indefinite determiners.20 As Koptjevskaja-Tamm demonstrates, they can also precede or follow adjectives and co-occur with real possessors. The examples in (6.82) show this. (6.82) a.

NORWEGIAN ei slitsam seks tim-ar-s reise IDF.F.SG tiring six hour-PL-s journey ‘a tiring journey of six hours’

20 But as Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2003b) notes, the indefinite article that goes with the head noun

is often omitted if the measure phrase also has an indefinite article.

242

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

b.

ei

seks tim-ar-s slitsam reise six hour-PL-s tiring journey ‘a tiring journey of six hours’ IDF.F.SG

c.

vår slitsamm-e seks tim-ar-s reise our tiring-DEF six hour-PL-s journey ‘our tiring journey of six hours’

However, unlike swearword pseudopossessors, measure pseudopossessors can project complex phrases: (6.83)

SWEDISH (Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2003b:523) ett tre förfärlig-a timm-ar-s förhör IDF.N.SG three dreadful-PL hour-PL-s inquiry ‘an inquiry lasting three dreadful hours’

But somewhat surprisingly, they are not always acceptable in definite DPs, although they can appear in DPs that are definite because of a possessor, as we saw in (6.82c). Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2003b) observes that constructions like (6.84a), where a measure pseudopossessor combines with a definite noun and nothing else, are unacceptable whether or not the preposed determiner is present. It gets grammatical if the determiner is omitted and the measure element is compounded with the head noun, as in (6.84b), but this requires that the compound refer to an established category (in this case, ‘three hour lecture’ must be a salient enough concept).21 There is also great improvement, however, if the preposed determiner is replaced by a demonstrative, as in (6.84c), or if a restrictive relative clause is added, as in (6.84d). (6.84) SWEDISH (Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2003b:524) a. * (den) tre timm-ar-s föreläsning-en DEF.CG.SG three hour-PL-s lecture-DEF Intended meaning: ‘the lecture of three hours’ 21 Such compounding is only possible if the noun is not already a compound. Thus, while the

compounds in (ia) and (ib) are grammatical, the combination in (ic) is ungrammatical. When the head noun is already a compound, the measure expression must be separate from it, as in (id) (the examples are Norwegian). (i)a.

ei

to-liter-s-flaske

b. ei

vin-flaske

IDF.F.SG two-litre-s-bottle

IDF.F.SG wine-bottle

‘a bottle of two litres’ size’

‘a wine bottle’

c. * ei

to-liter-s-vin-flaske

IDF.F.SG two-litre-s-wine-bottle

d. ei

to-liter-s

vin-flaske wine-bottle ‘a wine bottle of two litres’ size’ IDF.F.SG two-litre-s

243

PRENOMINAL POSSESSORS

b.

tre-timm-ar-s-föreläsning-en three hour-PL-s-lecture-DEF ‘the three hour lecture’

c.

detta tre timm-ar-s skriftlig-a this.N three hour-PL-s written-DEF ‘this three-hour written exam’

d.

det

prov exam

tre timm-ar-s skriftlig-a prov som all-a three hour-PL-s written-DEF exam RC all-PL är så rädd-a för are so afraid-PL of ‘the three-hour written exam which everyone is so afraid of’ DEF.N.SG

I agree completely with these judgements, but I would like to point out that contrary to what Koptjevskaja-Tamm suggests, measure pseudopossessors are not incompatible with definiteness marking as such. In Norwegian, demonstratives normally co-occur with suffixed definiteness markers, and as (6.85) shows, this is no different in phrases containing measure pseudopossessors. (6.85)

NORWEGIAN denne tre tim-ar-s skriftleg-e this three hour-PL-s written-DEF ‘this three-hour written exam’

prøv-a exam-DEF

It appears that the problem with measure pseudopossessors in definite DPs has to do with the definite D, which neither can be spelled out nor, unless a demonstrative precedes it, be left phonologically empty in these cases. It looks as if the measure pseudopossessor interferes with the identification of a definite D. Now recall that on my analysis, a real possessor in the possessive –s construction will be attracted to Spec-DP because of its POSS feature, and since it is nominal, it gives the DP projection the required phonological realisation. As we see in (6.83), a measure pseudopossessor looks like a relatively ordinary indefinite DP, except for the suffixed –s. Also note that swearword pseudopossessors, which I take to be adjectives, do not cause problems for a definite D— see (6.76a) and (6.80a)—nor does a measure expression that is contained in an adjectival phrase, as in (6.86). (6.86)

NORWEGIAN den tre tim-ar lang-e DEF.F.SG three hour-PL long-DEF ‘the exam lasting three hours’

prøv-a exam-DEF.F.SG

244

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

These facts suggest that measure pseudopossessors are indeed nominal. My proposal is that they are DPs sitting in a Spec position in the adjectival field. It is therefore conceivable that the definite D will try to attract the measure pseudopossessor, and that this prevents D from being spelled out. But the pseudopossessor cannot move to Spec-DP to identify D since it does not represent the definiteness of D. Consequently, the derivation crashes when a measure pseudopossessor immediately follows D, except when there is a demonstrative above D, in which case the DP projection can be empty anyway. We can now also understand why a restrictive relative clause makes a difference. As we saw in chapter 3, the highest D in a restrictive relative clause construction can be spelled out even if there are no prenominal modifiers, and then no constituent will be attracted to the Spec of that D. Since spelling out D is always an option in restrictive relative clause constructions, a pseudopossessor does not interfere fatally with D in these cases. Strikingly, spelling out D is not so bad if there is an adjective in front of the measure pseudopossessor, as in (6.87). This construction remains good if another adjective is added between the pseudopossessor and the head noun, which shows clearly that the grammaticality is not a result of compounding the latter two elements. (6.87)

NORWEGIAN den obligatorisk-e tre tim-ar-s (skriftleg-e) prøv-a DEF.SG compulsory-DEF three hour-PL-s written-DEF exam-DEF ‘the compulsory three-hour (written) exam’

This is evidence that measure pseudopossessors do in fact interfere with D, as I am proposing. The higher adjective in (6.87) agrees with D without being nominal. Since this adjective is the closest goal for the probe D here, we end up with a spelled-out D, as is normal when adjectives are present. D does not see past the adjective, and because of this, the measure pseudopossessor is free to appear lower down. 6.6.3 Characterising pseudopossessors The third type of pseudopossessors is harder to define than the others, but as far as I can see, ‘characterising pseudopossessors’ is an appropriate designation, although there may be several subtypes as far as the semantics is concerned—see Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2003b).22 I give another example of a characterising pseudopossessor in (6.88), which moreover includes a plural head noun and a plural indefinite determiner.

22 In Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2003b) they are called ‘inserted genitives’, and in Woisetschlaeger

(1983), ‘inner genitives’.

245

PRENOMINAL POSSESSORS

(6.88)

NORWEGIAN noen trøst-en-s ord IDF.PL comfort-DEF-s word.PL ‘some words of comfort’

Characterising pseudopossessors may look more like real possessors than other types of pseudopossessors, but as Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2003b) points out, they may nevertheless co-occur with a real possessor: (6.89)

SWEDISH (Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2003b:529) di-tt sanning-en-s ord your-N.SG truth-DEF-s word.PL ‘your home truths’

She also shows that a characterising pseudopossessor can be a complex DP, with its own prenominal determiner. The definiteness of this DP can even be different from that of the host DP: (6.90)

SWEDISH (Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2003b:527) en det sund-a förnuft-et-s IDF.CG.SG DEF.N.SG common-DEF sense-DEF.N.SG-s indifferens indifferenceCG ‘an indifference of the common sense’

Furthermore, characterising pseudopossessors have the same effect as measure pseudopossessors on a definite D in the larger DP: they require something other than a determiner in front of them. I illustrate this in (6.91). (6.91) NORWEGIAN a. * (det) trøst-en-s ord-et DEF.N.SG comfort-DEF-s word-DEF Intended meaning: ‘the word of comfort’ b.

det

etterlengta trøst-en-s longed.for comfort-DEF-s ‘the longed-for word of comfort’ DEF.N.SG

c.

dette trøst-en-s this.N comfort-DEF-s ‘this word of comfort’

ord-et word-DEF

ord-et word-DEF

246

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

Hence, they seem to be syntactically similar to measure pseudopossessors. There is one noticeable difference, though. While measure pseudopossessors do not trigger definiteness on other elements, characterising pseudopossessors make following adjectives definite, while preceding adjectives remain indefinite if the DP as a whole is indefinite. The contrast between (6.92a) and (6.92b) is an illustration: when the adjective trufast “faithful” precedes the pseudopossessor, it is indefinite, but when it follows, it is definite. (6.92) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN ein trufast Herren-s IDF.M.SG faithful.IDF Lord-DEF-s ‘a faithful servant of the Lord’ ein

Herren-s trufast-e Lord-DEF-s faithful-DEF ‘a faithful servant of the Lord’ IDF.M.SG

tenar servant

tenar servant

In (6.93) I include a beautiful example from Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2003b), originally due to the writer Vilhelm Moberg. We see here that the adjective preceding the pseudopossessor skogarnas “of the woods” is indefinite, while the adjective following the pseudopossessor is definite! The head noun rike “kingdom” is however indefinite and goes with the initial indefinite determiner. (6.93)

SWEDISH (cf. Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2003b:534) ett ödslig-t skog-ar-na-s igen-vuxn-a IDF.N.SG desolate.N.SG wood-PL-DEF-s over-grown-DEF rike kingdomN ‘a desolate overgrown kingdom of the woods’

I have no explanation to offer for this curious pattern. One would expect that the definiteness of the pseudopossessor to either have no effect outside the pseudopossessor itself, or else spread to the whole containing DP. I therefore leave the definiteness pattern in (6.92) and (6.93) as an unsolved riddle. Summing up, pseudopossessors are –s-marked constituents that are located in the adjectival field inside DPs. They do not have a possessor theta role, nor is the suffixed –s the realisation of a POSS feature. Instead, they are more like adjectives semantically. Swearword pseudopossessors are also much like adjectives syntactically. However, measure pseudopossessors and characterising pseudopossessors are DPs, and for this reason, they may interfere with the realisation of a definite D in their host DP.

PRENOMINAL POSSESSORS

247

6.7 The definiteness of possessed nominal phrases We will now consider once more the claim that possessed nominal phrases in Scandinavian are necessarily definite. This claim contrasts with the statements in Jackendoff (1968), about English, and in Schoorlemmer (1998) about English, German, Dutch and French (and also with the description of West Flemish in Grohmann & Haegeman 2003). According to Schoorlemmer, the definiteness of the possessor determines the definiteness of the DP as a whole in these languages, which all are of the type where a possessor does not co-occur with a determiner. Since prenominal possessors in Scandinavian also do not normally occur with a determiner, we might expect the possessor to determine the definiteness here as well. At first blush, the example shown below seems to confirm our expectation. Here a possessed DP is the associate of an expletive, which is not normally possible—see, for example, (6.9) above. However, the possessor in (6.94) is indefinite, and one might think that this is what allows its host DP to appear in this frame. But note that the adjective following the possessor has the definite (‘strong’) form, which suggests that the possessed DP as a whole is definite after all. (6.94)

NORWEGIAN Det ligg ein gammal mann-s vel-brukt-e it lies an old man-POSS well-worn-DEF ‘There is an old man’s well worn hat lying here.’

hatt her. hat here

The phrase ein gammal manns “an old man’s” is clearly a real possessor, since another possessor cannot be added: (6.95) NORWEGIAN * min (ein) gammal mann-s hatt my an old man-POSS hat Intended meaning: ‘my [old man’s] hat’ We have however seen before, especially in chapter 2, that a DP that is formally definite can be the associate of an expletive if it does not get the interpretation that is typical of definite nominals—that is, if it is not specific and inclusive. Moreover, Woisetschlaeger (1983) showed that the same is true of possessed DPs.23 For the case at hand, the crucial fact does not seem to be that the possessor is indefinite; what matters more is that it does not have a specific

23 Woisetschlaeger (1983) also claimed that some DPs containing indefinite possessor phrases

are themselves indefinite. However, the examples he gives of this, such as a new children’s book, can now be recognised as involving pseudopossessors, and therefore not relevant for the present discussion.

248

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

reference. If a specific interpretation is forced by adding viss “certain” to the possessor phrase, the expression gets much less acceptable: (6.96) NORWEGIAN ?* Det ligg ein it lies a her. here

viss gammal mann-s vel-brukt-e certain old man-s well-worn-DEF

hatt hat

In other words, a nonspecific indefinite possessor does not make its host DP semantically definite, only formally definite. Within Scandinavian, Icelandic is an exception, in that a genitive possessor in this language is compatible with indefinite marking on an adjective in the same host DP. But as the following examples show, the (in)definiteness of the adjective, and hence of the DP as a whole, is not determined by the (in)definiteness of the possessor. (6.97) a.

b.

ICELANDIC slitinn hatt-ur gamals worn.IDF.M.SG.NOM hatM-SG.NOM old.IDF.M.SG.GEN manns manM.SG.GEN ‘an old man’s worn hat’ slitinn hatt-ur kennar-ans worn.IDF.M.SG.NOM hatM-SG.NOM teacher-DEF.M.SG.GEN ‘a worn hat belonging to the teacher’

Recall that for some speakers of Icelandic, the mere presence of a genitive possessor triggers definiteness, but for those who do not get this effect, a DP with a genitive possessor is free to be definite or indefinite.24 If we now go back to Schoorlemmer’s (1998) claim that the definiteness of the possessor determines the definiteness of the host DP, the English examples she gives to support it are the following: (6.98) a. b.

ENGLISH There were some child’s parents in front of the school. There was a man’s job at stake.

24 Alexiadou (2005) argues states that a non-prepositional genitive possessor will share the

(in)definiteness of the possessed nominal. As we see, this does not hold for Icelandic. Her more general claim that (in)definiteness sharing in possessor constructions is not uniform across languages is however in line with what I am arguing here.

PRENOMINAL POSSESSORS

249

In these examples, DPs with indefinite possessors appear as associates of the expletive in the existential construction. Schoorlemmer takes this as evidence that the DPs are indefinite, and she attributes their indefiniteness to the indefinite possessors. However, we have seen that a DP does not have to be formally indefinite to be the associate of an expletive. Since the definiteness or indefiniteness of the larger DPs in (6.98) is not marked in any way, we might take them to be formally definite. We might further conclude that possessed DPs in English, and in Scandinavian outside of Icelandic, are formally definite, and that when possessed DPs can appear as associates of expletives, it is because they contain nonspecific possessors. 6.8 Summary In some varieties of Scandinavian, such as Standard Danish and Standard Swedish, DP-internal possessors are always prenominal and precede weak quantifiers and adjectives. On my analysis, these prenominal possessors surface in Spec-DP. However, like postnominal possessors they are generated in Spec-NP. Moreover, they interact with n in much the same way as postnominal possessors—they agree with n, which means that n contains a POSS feature and therefore is definite. In the varieties in question, n attracts the possessor to Spec-nP, with the result that n is not spelled out. From Spec-nP the possessor moves to Spec-DP via Spec-PossP. If the possessor is pronominal, neither D or Poss is normally spelled out (although there are exceptions), but if the possessor is non-pronominal, the Poss head gets spelled out as –s (–sar(a) in Faroese), which only realises the POSS feature of Poss, or as a pronominal element, which spells out a set of φ-features in addition to the POSS feature. It should also be noted that in colloquial Danish and in many Swedish dialects, an –s that is suffixed to a possessor is not the spellout of Poss, but represents instead a POSS feature belonging to the possessor itself. In Icelandic, possessors move to the front of the noun only if they are focused. Hence, possessor fronting in Icelandic must be triggered by a focus feature, which is present in the possessor and in a head high up in the host DP—possibly in Poss. Many varieties of Norwegian show a pattern that falls between that of Swedish and Danish on one side and Icelandic on the other. In these varieties, pronominal possessors are prenominal only if they are focused. That is, they are licensed in Spec-NP by virtue of their agreement with n, and can only leave this position if a focus feature draws them out. Nonpronominal possessors, by contrast, are postnominal if they combine with an element that leads to their licensing—for example, a preposition—but prenominal in the absence of such an element. In the latter case, some realisation of Poss (–s or sin) will accompany the fronted possessor. We have also seen that some –s-marked constituents that appear prenominally inside DPs are not possessors at all. They are not located in Spec-DP,

250

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

where prenominal possessors end up in Scandinavian, but instead in the adjectival field. I have referred to these constituents as pseudopossessors. But interestingly, with the exception of swearword pseudopossessors, which behave much like adjectives syntactically, pseudopossessors interfere with the identification of D when they follow immediately after D. On my analysis, this is due to the nominal nature of measure pseudopossessors and characterising pseudopossessors. Finally, the Scandinavian evidence suggests that the semantic definiteness of a nominal phrase containing a possessor depends on the specificity of the possessor, and not directly on the definiteness of the possessor.

CHAPTER 7 PREDICATES AND ARGUMENTS

7.1 Introduction It has been argued that predicative nominal phrases are structurally different from argumental nominal phrases (see Hudson 1989, Bowers 1988, 1993a, Delsing 1993, Holmberg 1993, Longobardi 1994, Mandelbaum 1994 and Zamparelli 2000). According to this view, the argumental version of a nominal phrase contains structure that is not present in its predicative counterpart. This must be true even when the two look similar, as is the case with the argument a cat in (7.1a) and the predicate a cat in (7.1b). In short, the idea is that predicate nominals in general are structurally smaller than argumental nominals. (7.1) a. b.

ENGLISH A cat was sitting on the lawn. Buster is a cat.

In this chapter, I will show that such a generalisation is not corroborated by Scandinavian. Instead, it appears that in Scandinavian, full DPs can appear not only as arguments but also as predicates. At the same time, nominal arguments as well as predicates can be structurally smaller than DPs. In short, the idea that the contrast between functioning as an argument and functioning as a predicate corresponds strictly to a contrast in syntactic category seems to find no support in Scandinavian. In the first main section of the chapter, section 7.2, I deal with bare singular nominals, which do not involve a D-projection but nevertheless can be arguments in Scandinavian. More precisely, nominal phrases containing a bare singular countable noun and possibly an adjective but no quantifier or indefinite determiner can appear as predicates or as arguments, under certain conditions having to do with semantics. Hence, there seems to be no syntactic difference between nominal arguments and nominal predicates as far as these phrases are concerned. I also include in section 7.2 a discussion of the morphological form of indefinite determiners, which display a somewhat different pattern in predicates than in arguments. But again, no systematic syntactic contrast between predicates and arguments can be established on the basis of these differences.

252

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

In 7.3 I identify some tests that can be used to distinguish between predicates and arguments. Then in section 7.4 I apply these tests to nominal phrases of various types, and I conclude that nominals that pass the predicate tests are not necessarily structurally smaller than nominals that do not. In Scandinavian, a nominal predicate can be a full DP, and it can even contain a strong quantifier and thus be a QP. My conclusion is that nominal predicates are not characterised by their syntactic category but by their semantics: they have an intensional interpretation, whereas nominal arguments can have an intensional or an extensional interpretation. Ultimately, the difference may be connected to the presence of a Pred head over the nominal predicate, but as far as the nominal projections themselves are concerned, there is no systematic structural difference between arguments and predicates. 7.2 Bare singular nominals It is relatively well known that although all Scandinavian varieties except Icelandic have indefinite singular determiners, countable singular nouns with a predicative function often appear without a determiner, as in the following example:1 (7.2)

NORWEGIAN Else er {advokat/professor}. Else is lawyer/professor ‘Else is a lawyer/a professor.’

Since these nominals have no morphological marking at all, I will refer to them as bare singular nominals, or BSNs. BSNs can however also be arguments, without necessarily getting a mass reading.2 An example is given here: (7.3)

NORWEGIAN Tarald røyk-ar pipe. Tarald smoke-PRES pipe ‘Tarald smokes a pipe.’

1 These BSNs are different from the bare definites discussed by Heycock & Zamparelli (2003).

The latter type, which requires coordination, is also found in Scandinavian, as the following Norwegian example illustrates. (i) Märtha har fått ei datter. Både mor og barn har det bra. Märtha has got a daughter both mother and child have it good ‘Märtha has borne a daughter. Mother and child are both well.’ 2 Kallulli (1999) proposes that BSNs are in reality predicates. See Borthen (2003) for counterarguments to Kallulli’s proposal.

PREDICATES AND ARGUMENTS

253

In the remainder of this section, I first look at the conditions under which BSNs appear in Scandinavian. I then turn to a discussion of the syntax of BSNs, and finally, I deal with the morphological form of indefinite determiners in arguments and predicates. 7.2.1 The context dependency of BSN arguments As Borthen (2003) discusses in much detail, the acceptability of BSN arguments depends on the context. For example, they are perfectly acceptable in a ‘comparison of types’ context: (7.4)

NORWEGIAN Pistol er eit meir effektivt våpen enn brød-kniv. pistol be.PRES a more efficient weapon than bread-knife ‘A pistol is a more efficient weapon than a bread knife.’

They are also acceptable in contexts of acquisition, possession and production, as (7.5) exemplifies. (7.5)

NORWEGIAN Kari fekk ny sykkel. Kari got new bike ‘Kari got a new bike.’

In addition, BSNs often appear in the context of a ‘conventional situation type’.3 Borthen (2003:136) defines ‘conventional situation type’ as “a property, state or activity that occurs frequently or standardly in a given contextual frame and has particular importance or relevance in that frame.” To give an example, buying a ticket is a highly relevant activity that is standardly a part of a travelling event. Consequently, the BSN billett “ticket” in (7.6) is perfectly acceptable. (7.6)

NORWEGIAN Anne kjøpte billett. Anne bought ticket ‘Anne bought a ticket.’

In this case, the relevant contextual frame that allows the BSN to appear is ready-made by the culture. But notably, it is possible to construct new contextual frames where BSNs will be semantically acceptable. One way to do this is 3 In fact, the same phenomenon is seen in English in expressions like go to bed, go to school,

be in hospital, be on stage. Be on stage, for example, involves a certain set of conditions which go beyond simply being physically located on the stage.

254

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

to imagine a test or contest that consists of several tasks. Then each task will be a conventional situation type in that context, and BSNs will be allowed. For example, the following becomes acceptable in such a context: (7.7)

NORWEGIAN Kandidat-a-ne måtte gi eple til elefant. candidate-PL-DEF had.to give apple to elephant ‘The candidates had to give (at least one) apple to (at least one) elephant.’

We also see from the translation here that a BSN does not imply a specified quantity. Either a singular or a plural entity can be pragmatically understood. We will return later to the absence of quantification in BSNs and the implications it has for the syntactic analysis. Importantly, there are no lexical restrictions on which nouns can appear as BSNs. Individual nouns differ, however, with respect to how easy it is to provide a context that will make them appropriate as BSNs. For nouns that can be part of VPs that denote situations that are culturally salient, it is very easy to give BSN examples, but for other nouns, providing a context where they can be part of the description of a conventional situation type requires more effort. Hence, some nouns appear to appear more readily as BSNs than others, but this is only a consequence of a difference in the availability of an appropriate context. Because of this, I will use # instead of * to indicate where an indefinite determiner will normally be required. Finally, it should be noted that a BSN argument could always be replaced by a nominal phrase with an indefinite determiner. Thus, alongside (7.5) the following is also possible: (7.8)

NORWEGIAN Kari fekk ein ny sykkel. Kari got a new bike ‘Kari got a new bike.’

On the semantic side, the difference between (7.5) and (7.8) is that in the latter case, the bike is introduced into the discourse as a referent, whereas this is not so in the former case. We see this from the fact that the determined noun in (7.8) can combine with a nonrestrictive relative clause, as in (7.9a), but as (7.9b) demonstrates, the BSN in (7.5) does not easily do so. If one wants to make reference to an individual associated with the BSN, this has to be done by another nominal phrase, as in (7.9c).

PREDICATES AND ARGUMENTS

(7.9) a.

255

NORWEGIAN Kari fekk ein ny sykkel, som forresten er blå. Kari got a new bike RC by.the.way is blue ‘Kari got a new bike, which by the way is blue.’

b. # Kari fekk ny sykkel, som forresten er blå. Kari got new bike RC by.the.way is blue c.

Kari fekk ny sykkel. Sykkel-en hennes er forresten blå. Kari got new bike bike-DEF hers is by.the.way blue ‘Kari got a new bike. Her bike is by the way blue.’

In the words of Borthen (2003), the reading that BSNs get when they appear as arguments can be characterised as emphasising the type of the nominal, instead of the token. The consequence of this is what we see above: unlike a determined nominal, a BSN does not introduce an individuated token as referent. 7.2.2 Nominal predicates with and without indefinite determiners Borthen (2003) further argues that BSNs are subject to the same semantic conditions regardless of whether they are predicates or arguments. In either case, it is the meaning of the VP as a whole that matters. For example, (7.10a) is a perfectly acceptable utterance. But so is (7.10b). (7.10) a.

NORWEGIAN Heidi har hund. Heidi has dog ‘Heidi has a dog.’

b.

Heidi er hunde-eigar. Heidi is dog-owner ‘Heidi is a dog-owner.’

In either case, the VP refers to the same conventional situation type. Having a dog/being a dog-owner occurs frequently in Scandinavia, and it does have “particular importance or relevance” in the society. There are organisations for dog-owners and rules that apply specifically to dog-owning. It is therefore no surprise that a BSN is licensed in both these examples. The relevance of the conventional situation type context to the acceptability of BSN predicates is also seen if (7.2), with a BSN predicate, is compared to (7.11), where a prenominal determiner is normally required. (7.11)

NORWEGIAN Else er #(ein) erfaren advokat. Else is an experienced lawyer ‘Else is an experienced lawyer.’

256

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

Being a lawyer is a conventional role in a way that being an experienced lawyer is not, and this is probably the reason why there is a determiner in (7.11) although there is none in (7.2). It is not the case, though, that the presence of an adjective in a nominal predicate always triggers the presence of a determiner. The predicate in (7.12), for example, is perfectly fine without a determiner. This is in accordance with Borthen’s account: being a professional football player is a conventional role, and therefore the BSN is licit. (7.12)

NORWEGIAN Dagny er profesjonell fotball-spelar. Dagny is professional football-player ‘Dagny is a football professional.’

In addition to the licensing in conventional situation type contexts, Borthen (2003) notices another effect, having to do with the acceptability of BSNs, which also works the same way with predicates as with arguments. Nominal phrases that normally must have a prenominal determiner in episodic contexts can occur without that determiner if they appear in a generic context, such that the BSN is part of the description of the situation type that the sentence generalises over. I illustrate this with an argumental nominal phrase in (7.13) and with a predicative nominal phrase in (7.14). (7.13) a.

b.

(7.14) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN (cf. Borthen 2003:123) Per syng i #(ei) hengekøye. Per sing.PRES in a hammock ‘Per is singing in a hammock.’ Det er ikkje lett å synge i (ei) hengekøye. it is not easy to sing in a hammock ‘It is not easy to sing in an hammock.’ NORWEGIAN Buster er #(ein) gammal katt. Buster is an old cat ‘Buster is an old cat.’ Det er ikkje lett å vera (ein) gammal katt. it is not easy to be an old cat ‘It is not easy to be an old cat.’

However, whereas argument BSNs and predicate BSNs are subject to the same semantic conditions, it appears however that there is one type of context

PREDICATES AND ARGUMENTS

257

that excludes BSNs from predicates without applying to arguments in the same way. This is the context of speaker-oriented evaluation. Consider the following two examples: (7.15)

NORWEGIAN Buster er #(ein) raring. Buster is a funny.one ‘Buster is a funny one.’

(7.16)

SWEDISH (Börjars 1998:248) Nisse är #(en) söt-nos. Nisse is a sweet-nose ‘Nisse is a sweetie pie.’

With a determiner present, both (7.15) and (7.16) would normally be taken to express the speaker’s evaluation of the subject. Without the determiner, on the other hand, we would interpret these utterances as statements of purported objective facts. But Buster’s being a raring or Nisse’s being a sötnos can be objective facts only in very special contexts, such as in a play. Hence, in most contexts the determiner will be obligatory with these particular nouns. Börjars (1998) proposes that a determiner is obligatory with predicative nouns that do not get a role interpretation, and that without the determiner, only a literal or role interpretation is possible. This seems to be correct as far as it goes, but it seems clear that the presence of the determiner in the above examples is connected to speaker-oriented modality. I therefore think Delsing (1993) was on the right track when he stated that the determiner is nearly obligatory if the noun is ‘descriptive’ rather than ‘classifying’, and related ‘classifying’ readings to the existence of objective criteria. Thus, my proposal is that in Scandinavian nominal predicates, an indefinite determiner is obligatory if the predication expresses the speaker’s evaluation of the subject. A minimal pair illustrating the connection between speaker-oriented evaluative modality and the presence of an indefinite article in Scandinavian nominal predicates is seen in (7.17). The most natural interpretation of (7.17a), with a determiner in the predicate, is that it expresses the speaker’s evaluation of the subject,4 whereas (7.17b) suggests that the subject is an angel on objective criteria, for example by literally being an angel or by having the role of an angel in a play.5

4 Another possibility is that ein engel ‘an angel’ is a referential nominal phrase. 5 As Halmøy (2001) points out, the same contrast as in (7.17) is also seen in nominals embed-

ded under the non-verbal Pred head som (Norwegian examples):

258

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

(7.17) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN Ho er ein engel. she is an angel ‘She is an angel [on the speaker’s subjective evaluation].’ Ho er engel. she is angel ‘She is an angel [on objective criteria].’

Thus, in (7.17a) the determiner is required because of the evaluative modality, but in (7.17b) a BSN is licit because being an angel is a conventional situation type according to the culture. Given the examples we have just looked at, it seems that we have to conclude, with Borthen (2003), that the absence or presence of an indefinite determiner in nominal predicates has to do with the semantics of the construction. This view contrasts with the analysis in Holmberg (1993), according to which the determiner is present for purely structural reasons in examples like (7.11), which also contains an adjective. Holmberg’s idea is that the determiner provides a Spec position for the subject to move through on its way to the position where it is spelled out. If there were no adjective, the subject could move through the Spec of nP, and consequently, no determiner would be necessary either. But as we have seen, predicative nouns sometimes require a determiner even if there is no adjective, while other nominal predicates contain an adjective but no determiner. Hence, the presence or absence of the determiner is certainly not determined by the syntax in the mechanical fashion that Holmberg (1993) suggested.6 Moreover, while Holmberg’s analysis could not be extended to argument nominals, there are cases where the presence of an adjective triggers the presence of a determiner also in arguments. For example, (7.10a) can be compared to (7.18):

(i)a.

b.

Ho snakkar som statsminister. she speaks as prime.minister ‘She speaks as prime minister.’ Ho snakkar som ein statsminister. she speaks as a prime.minister ‘She speaks like a prime minister.’

In (ia), the subject must be a prime minister on objective criteria, but in (ib), the predicate expresses the speaker’s evaluation. 6 Delsing (1993) claims that the indefinite article has semantic restrictions on its appearance in predicates but not in arguments. We see now that this is not a correct generalisation either.

PREDICATES AND ARGUMENTS

(7.18)

NORWEGIAN Heidi har #(ein) svart Heidi has a black ‘Heidi has a black dog.’

259

hund. dog

The example in (7.18) falls neatly into place on the semantically based approach to the presence of indefinite determiners, however. Normally, having a black dog is not a conventional situation type. There are no organisations for owners of black dogs only, only for specific breeds, and no rules that apply specifically to black dogs or their owners. Hence, unless we construct a context in which having a black dog is a conventional situation type, for example, one of several predefined options, the indefinite determiner must be present in (7.18), although it may well be absent in (7.10a). We will now go on to look at some further aspects of the effect of speakeroriented modality. As Delsing (1993) notes, in predicates the indefinite determiner can appear with mass nouns, which is not normally possible in arguments. I illustrate this contrast in (7.19). (7.19) a.

b.

SWEDISH (Delsing 1993:35–36) Hon har skaffat (?*en) sur ved. she has brought a sour wood ‘She has brought some sour wood.’ Det var ??(en) sur ved du har skaffat. it was a sour wood you have brought ‘The wood you brought is certainly sour.’

I share Delsing’s judgements of the examples above, but I think that something needs to be added. It seems to me that the presence of the determiner in front of the predicative mass noun implies that the clause expresses the speaker’s evaluation. That is, the expression in (7.19b) could be paraphrased as “I really think that the wood you brought is sour.” In fact, the use of the past tense form var “was” instead of the present tense form är “is” also signals evaluation. But if a mass noun is part of a predicate whose application does not depend on evaluation, the indefinite article does not appear. For example, usalta smør “unsalted butter” will normally appear without an indefinite determiner, both when it is an argument, as in (7.20a), and when it is a predicate, as in (7.20b). (7.20) a.

NORWEGIAN Ho kjøpte (#eit) u-salta she bought an un-salted ‘She bought unsalted butter.’

smør. butter

260

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

b.

Dette er (#eit) u-salta this.N is an un-salted ‘This is unsalted butter.’

smør. butter

The presence of a determiner in these examples would indicate evaluation or give the reading “a type of unsalted butter”. Now while the quality of the wood in (7.19) may be a matter of opinion, whether or not the stuff under discussion in (7.20) is unsalted butter may normally not. This is why the unmarked option is to leave out the determiner. In addition, as Börjars (1998) points out, an evaluative nominal predicate, but not a non-evaluative one, allows the evaluator to be spelled out as an additional argument—a so-called ethical dative. In (7.21) we see that the ethical dative can be added to (7.16) and (7.19b) without problems, but it cannot be added to the non-evaluative nominal predicate construction Oscar är en katt “Oscar is a cat”. (7.21) a.

SWEDISH ((a) and (c) from Börjars 1998:248; (b) from Delsing 1993:36) Nisse är mig en söt-nos. Nisse is me a sweet-nose ‘I really think Nisse is a sweetie pie.’

b.

Det var mig en sur ved du har skaffat. it was me a sour wood you have brought ‘I really think the wood you brought is sour.’

c.

Oscar är (*mig) en katt. Oscar is me a cat ‘Oscar is a cat.’

The issue is further complicated by the fact that an ethical dative can also be added to (7.20b). The presence of this argument forces an evaluative reading, and strikingly, the indefinite determiner is then obligatory: (7.22)

NORWEGIAN Dette er meg *(eit) u-salta smør. this.N is me an un-salted butter ‘I really think this butter has (too) little salt.’

I conclude that the reason why mass nouns can appear with an indefinite determiner when they are predicates but not when they are arguments is that as predicates they can more easily be evaluative. What remains to be worked out,

PREDICATES AND ARGUMENTS

261

though, is how the presence of the indefinite determiner in evaluative predicates should be explained formally. 7.2.3 On the syntax of bare singular nominals The formal analysis of bare singular nominals (BSNs) in Borthen (2003) is formulated within a HPSG framework, and it is not clear how or whether it could be translated into the present framework. Instead I will draw on some of Borthen’s observations in an attempt to reach some conclusions concerning the syntax of Scandinavian BSNs. Firstly, Borthen shows that BSNs cannot take wide scope over quantifiers. This is seen if (7.23a) is compared to (7.23b). The expression in (7.23a) is ambiguous, such that either alle ungane “all the children” takes scope over ei jakke “a jacket”, as illustrated in (7.23c), or else ei jakke “a jacket” takes scope over alle ungane “all the children”, as illustrated in (7.23d). (7.23) a.

NORWEGIAN (see Borthen 2003:24–25) All-e ung-a-ne prøvde ei jakke. all-PL child-PL-DEF tried a jacket ‘All the children tried on a jacket.’ [ambiguous: (c) or (d)]

b.

All-e ung-a-ne prøvde jakke. all-PL child-PL-DEF tried jacket ‘All the children tried on some jacket or other.’ [unambiguous: (c)]

c. d. e.

∀y (child(y) → ∃x (jacket(x) & tried-on (y,x))) ∃x (jacket(x) & ∀y (child(y) → tried-on (y,x))) ∀x (child(x) → tried-on-jacket (x))

The expression in (7.23b), by contrast, is not ambiguous; it can only mean that all the children tried on some jacket or other. Hence, its meaning comes closer to (7.23c) than to (7.23d). However, as Pereltsvaig (2002) observes, it is not necessarily the case that BSNs involve a quantifier at all. It is striking that if an overt quantifier is included, the phrase no longer has the properties that characterise BSNs. It is therefore possible that the meaning of (7.23b) should be given as in (7.23e).7 7 At first blush, examples like (ia) seem to provide an argument that BSNs are not quantified.

As we see, there is no number specification at all in the interpretation that we get. However, in reality wolf appears to be used as a mass noun in this case, since as (ib) shows, it is possible to add the quantifier mye “much”, which only combines with mass nouns. (i)a.

Det vart sett ulv i Oslo i går. it became seen wolf in Oslo yesterday ‘There were seen one or more wolves in Oslo yesterday.’

262

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

Similarly, while a determined indefinite noun can take scope over negation, a BSN cannot do so. I illustrate this in (7.24). (7.24) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN Eg prøvde ikkje ei jakke. I tried not a jacket ‘I did not try on a jacket.’ [∃¬ or ¬∃] Eg prøvde ikkje jakke. I tried not jacket ‘I didn’t try on any jacket.’ [¬∃]

The absence of quantification in BSNs is also seen from their inability to make an activity predicate telic. Thus, whereas both (7.25a) and (7.25b) are perfectly acceptable, only (7.25a) allows an in X time adverbial—see (7.26). Hence, while (7.25a) implies that the event has an end point, (7.25b) does not. (7.25) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN Anne strikka ei lue. Anne knitted a hat ‘Anne knitted a hat.’ Anne strikka lue. Anne knitted hat ‘Anne knitted a hat.’

(7.26) a.

NORWEGIAN Anne strikka ei lue på to timar. Anne knitted a hat on two hours ‘Anne knitted a hat (in two hours).’

b. * Anne Anne

strikka lue knitted hat

på to timar. on two hours

Another property of BSNs noted by Borthen (2003) is that they are often bad as antecedents for pronouns in contexts where indefinite nominals with a determiner make good antecedents. The contrast shown in (7.27) is rather typical:

b.

Det vart sett mye ulv i Oslo i fjor. it became seen much wolf in Oslo last.year ‘There were seen lots of wolves in Oslo last year.’

263

PREDICATES AND ARGUMENTS

(7.27) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN (see Borthen 2003:37) Kari kom i ein drosje. Den Kari kom i IDF.M.SG taxiM it.M/F ‘Kari arrived in a taxi. It was green.’

var grøn. was green

Kari kom i drosje. # Den var grøn. Kari kom i taxiM it.M/F was green ‘Kari arrived in a taxi. # It was green.’

As we see, the phrase ein drosje “a taxi” in (7.27a) establishes a referent that can be subsequently picked up by the pronoun den, whereas the BSN drosje “taxi” in (7.27b), which is perfectly acceptable as it stands here, does not allow a continuation with den, even though the pronoun agrees with the number and gender of drosje. Borthen (2003) further notices that BSNs are normally better antecedents for type anaphors than for token anaphors. That is, a BSN can normally be coreferential with a pronoun if the common reference is a certain type of entity (which is the nominal’s type discourse referent, in Borthen’s terms). Hence, the fragment in (7.28), where the pronoun det refers to the type ‘blue bike’, is fine regardless of whether the indefinite determiner is present in the antecedent. Note that unlike den, det does not agree with the gender of its antecedent. (7.28)

NORWEGIAN (see Borthen 2003:41) Kari har (ein) blå sykkel. Det har Ola òg. Kari has IDF.M.SG blue bikeM it.N has Ola too ‘Kari has a blue bike. That Ola has too.’

It is however not the case that a BSN can never be the antecedent of a pronoun that refers to an individual (a token anaphor in Borthen’s terms). The utterance shown in (7.29), for example, is well formed: (7.29)

NORWEGIAN (see Borthen 2003:37) Kari har sykkel, men ho brukar den Kari has bikeM but she uses it.M/F ‘Kari has a bike, but she never uses it.’

aldri. never

But as Borthen (2003) points out, in examples like this there is a change of focus from the BSN sykkel “bike” to the pronoun den “it.M/F”: while sykkel focuses on the type of vehicle that Kari owns, the pronoun den focuses on the particular bicycle that is hers. In other words, there is a shift from focus on type to focus on token. The inability to have individual reference, the inability to take high scope, and the obligatory absence of quantifiers suggests that BSNs lack the higher

264

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

functional projections CardP and DP. In other words, a BSN cannot be bigger that αP if an adjective is present, and when there is no adjective, it is probably an nP. Given that BSNs do not have individual reference, only a type reference, we would not expect them to take part in binding, if binding normally requires both the binder and the bindee to have individuated reference (Pereltsvaig 2002). Since it is hard to find relevant examples with Scandinavian BSNs as subjects, the binding properties of these nominals is better tested with certain ditransitive verbs. If a verb takes a theme argument and a location argument, the theme can bind into the location phrase, as the Norwegian example in (7.30) shows. (7.30)

NORWEGIAN Eg har sett {ein papegøyei/papegøye-ni} I have put a parrot/parrot-DEF sini. 3REFL.POSS ‘I have placed a/the parrot on its perch.’

på on

pinne-n pin-DEF

Now the question is, if we revert to our multi-task test context again, could another task be described as in (7.31), where the BSN papegøye “parrot” binds the reflexive possessor in the location argument? (7.31) NORWEGIAN %/* Oppgåve nummer to var å sette papegøyei på task number two was to put parrot on sini. 3REFL.POSS ‘Task number two was to place (a) parrot on its perch.’

pinne-n pin-DEF

As indicated, speakers of Norwegian tend to reject this construction, although they have no problems with (7.30).8 If the binding relation here requires individuated reference, and individuated reference is dependent on D, this is as expected. The fact that the construction is accepted by a small minority (which includes me) could then be due to a shift similar to what we saw in (7.29), or to interference from the telegraphic style used in headlines etc., where BSNs are freely allowed (see Borthen 2003). Now recall that nP has gender and number features, as well as a definiteness feature. It is therefore not so surprising that a BSN can trigger gender and number agreement in a predicative adjective, as in the following examples: 8 The (Standard) Swedish counterpart of (7.31), with a prenominal reflexive possessor (sin

pinne instead of pinnen sin), is also considered ungrammatical.

PREDICATES AND ARGUMENTS

(7.32) a.

b.

265

NORWEGIAN ((a) is from Borthen 2003:61) Har du bil klar? have you carM ready.M/F.SG ‘Do you have a car ready’ Har du bor klar-t? have you drillN ready-N.SG ‘Do you have a drill ready?’

The contrast between the masculine/feminine singular form of the adjective in (7.32a) and the neuter singular form in (7.32b) shows that the adjective is actually agreeing with the BSN. I conclude that it is possible for a predicate to pick up the features of the BSN even though the latter does not project to the DPlevel. Another uncontroversial use of a BSN is illustrated in (7.33), where a BSN is the correlate of a finite and of a nonfinite relative clause. (7.33) a.

b.

SWEDISH Jag har köpt sovsäcki [som jag ska använda ei I have bought sleeping.bag RC I shall use i båt-en]. in boat-DEF ‘I have bought a sleeping-bag that I will use in the boat.’ Jag har köpt sovsäcki [att använda ei i I have bought sleeping.bag to use in båt-en]. boat-DEF ‘I have bought a sleeping-bag to use in the boat.’

On the analysis of relative clauses that was developed in chapter 3, these examples show that a BSN can bind a relative operator.9 9 Pereltsvaig (2002) observes that Borthen (2003:62) marks the (Bokmål Norwegian) sentence

in (i) as unacceptable, and takes the reason for the unacceptability to be that unlike the examples in (7.32), where the BSN and the adjective constitute a small clause, (i) is a control structure, as indicated. Pereltsvaig concludes that BSNs cannot control PRO. (i) ??/* Hun vasket sykkeli [PROi ren ]. she washed bikeM clean.M/F.SG Intended meaning: ‘She washed a bike clean.’ However, Borthen’s notation indicates that (i) is unacceptable because an appropriate context that would license the BSN cannot be found. To test the acceptability of the control relation, we can change the formulation so that it fits into our multitask test context:

266

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

Summing up, it appears that BSNs interact with their syntactic environment in a number of ways, in spite of their being structurally smaller than other nominal phrases. A very important conclusion that can be drawn from the preceding discussion is that BSNs can appear as predicates and as arguments, and that they are subject to the same restrictions in either case. This fact is a serious problem for any theory stating that nominal arguments are always (at least) DPs, whereas nominal predicates are always smaller. 7.2.4 The morphology of indefinite determiners We have already seen that indefinite singular determiners in Scandinavian agree with the head noun in number and gender, and in Icelandic and Faroese also in case. Moreover, the forms that show up in nominal predicates can also be used in argumental nominal phrases—compare, for example, (7.8) and (7.11) above. In argumental nominal phrases there is however sometimes another option, in that an element meaning ‘some/any’ can replace the ordinary indefinite singular determiner. In Norwegian, this element is a negative polarity item. For example, in (7.34a), where the indefinite nominal phrase is embedded under the negation, noen “any” is more natural than ein “a” (alternatively, a BSN could appear here). In (7.34b), ein and noen are both possible, but noen is more marked pragmatically (it may indicate the expectation of a negative answer, or go with contrastive focus on the subject). (7.34) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN Eg har ikkje (??ein/OKnoen) sykkel. I have not a/any bike ‘I don’t have a bike/I have no bike.’ Har du (ein/noen) sykkel? have you a/any bike ‘Do you have a bike?’

The Swedish counterpart to noen, which is någon, can also be used in positive polarity contexts. The nominal phrase is then nonspecific, as illustrated in (7.35a). If någon is replaced by the ordinary indefinite singular determiner en, as in (7.35b), the indefinite nominal phrase can have a specific or a nonspecific reading. (ii) % Oppgåve nummer tre var å vaske sykkel task number three was to wash bike ‘Task number three was to wash a bike clean.’

rein. clean

For some speakers, but not for others, the multitask context does make the construction more acceptable. This suggests that either there is no PRO involved here, or else the control relation is not dependent on a D head being present in the controller.

267

PREDICATES AND ARGUMENTS

(7.35) a.

b.

SWEDISH Han ville att någon ung musik-student skulle he wanted that some young music-student should ha den. have it ‘He wanted some young music student or other to have it.’ Han ville att en ung musik-student he wanted that a young music-student den. it ‘He wanted a young music student to have it.’

skulle ha should have

As for the indefinite plural determiner, in Danish, Icelandic, and in most varieties of Norwegian there is one element that is used all contexts (although its form varies a little in Icelandic due to inflection). This is illustrated for Norwegian in (7.36). As we see, the indefinite plural determiner is noen in predicative nominal phrases, as in (7.36a), and in nominal arguments, as in (7.36b). (7.36) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN (most varieties) Dei er noen (stor-e) idiot-ar. they are some big-PL idiot-PL ‘They are (complete) idiots [metaphorically].’ Noen (kjende) lingvist-ar kjem hit i neste veke. some known linguist-PL come here in next week ‘Some (well-known) linguists are coming here next week.’

But in colloquial Swedish, in Faroese, and in some dialects of Norwegian, the indefinite plural determiner in predicate nominals is different from the indefinite plural determiner in arguments (see Delsing 1993). As illustrated in (7.37), in colloquial Swedish the indefinite plural determiner in predicate nominals is ena, a form that morphologically is made up of the indefinite singular article en plus a plural marker. As we see, ena may precede adjectives or combine directly with the noun when no adjectives are present. (7.37) a.

COLLOQUIAL SWEDISH (Delsing 1993:34) Dom är en-a duktig-a löpare. they are a-PL good-PL runners ‘They are good runners.’

268

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

b.

Dom är en-a idiot-er. they are a-PL idiot-PL ‘They are idiots.’

In arguments, by contrast, the plural indefinite determiner is normally några, the plural form of någon, in all varieties of Swedish. However, if the nominal argument is a description with an evaluative flavour, ena is also acceptable: (7.38) a.

b.

SWEDISH (including colloquial Swedish) {OKNågra/*en-a} duktig-a läkare opererade min mor. some/a-PL competent-PL doctors operated my mother ‘Some competent doctors operated on my mother.’ Jag träff-ade {några/en-a} konstig-a typ-er. I meet-PAST some/a-PL strange-PL guy-PL ‘I met som strange guys.’

We see that the distribution of en/ena and någon/några in Swedish is somewhat confusing. Någon/några only appear in arguments, where någon forces a nonspecific interpretation while några allows a specific or a non-specific interpretation. En/ena are used in predicates and arguments, although ena in an argument requires an evaluative reading, whereas en allows a specific interpretation when it appears in an argument. Hence, it is not easy to see what the stable parts of the meanings of en– and någ– could be, except for the indefiniteness, which is common to both elements. 7.3 Tests for predicatehood So far in this chapter, we have seen that BSNs can be predicates or arguments in Scandinavian. Later on, we will see that the same is true of nominal phrases that are much bigger. But before we get to that, we will look at some tests that can be used to identify nominal predicates. The basis of these tests is the observation that copular constructions with two nominals, of the general form Nominal is Nominal, can be either equative statements or predications. In an equative statement, that is, a proposition where identity of reference between two nominal phrases is asserted or negated (see Heycock & Kroch 1998), both nominal phrases are necessarily referential, and also presumably of argument size syntactically. In a predication, on the other hand, the predicative nominal phrase is not referential, and on the view that is dominant presently, it is smaller than an argument syntactically. In any case, it turns out that the two types of nominals react differently to certain syntactic operations. These operations constitute tests that will be our tools when we turn to the question of the structural size of predicative nominal phrases.

269

PREDICATES AND ARGUMENTS

7.3.1 Embedding under ‘consider’ One property that characterises a predicative nominal phrase is that it can be the predicate of a small clause embedded under verbs like ‘consider’ (Partee 1987, Doron 1988), and it cannot then invert with the subject (Adger & Ramchand 2003). Consider the copula construction in (7.39a). Ein flink lærar “a skilful teacher” must be the predicate here, since the embedding in (7.39b), with ein flink lærar in predicate position, is perfectly fine. The construction in (7.39c), by contrast, is semantically odd, as signalled by the # in front of the example. The problem is not that ein flink lærar cannot be a subject, but that the name Berit is bad as a predicate (unless it gets a very unusual interpretation). With a different predicate, ein flink lærar may well be a subject, as in (7.39d). Nevertheless, if we compare (7.39b) and (7.39c) we must conclude that the complement of reknar in (7.39b) is a predication structure, with ein flink lærar as the predicate. Hence, ein flink lærar is also a predicate in (7.39a). (7.39) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN Berit er ein flink lærar. Berit is a skilful teacher ‘Berit is a skilful teacher.’ Eg reknar Berit som ein I consider Berit as a ‘I consider Berit a skilful teacher.’

flink lærar. skilful teacher

c. # Eg reknar ein flink lærar som Berit. I consider a skilful teacher as Berit ‘I consider a skilful teacher Berit.’ d.

Eg reknar ein flink lærar som ein I consider a skilful teacher as an ressurs. asset ‘I consider a skilful teacher an important asset.’

viktig important

As for the element som “as”, which (obligatorily) appears in front of the predicate in the embedded small clauses shown above, it is arguably a realisation of the Pred head (see Eide & Åfarli 1999, 2001). On the assumption that all nominal predicates are complements of Pred heads there must also be a Pred head in (7.39a). The reason why it is not visible here must have to do with the PredP being the complement of the copula. I will not go into details in this matter, however. I will instead run the same test with a BSN. From (7.40a) and (7.40b) we see that a BSN, possibly combining with an adjective, can indeed be a predi-

270

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

cate in Scandinavian. In addition, (7.40c) shows that at least the BSN I am using here is not an appropriate subject at all—it has to have a determiner to fill that function. (7.40) a.

NORWEGIAN Heidi er (ut-lært) fotograf. Heidi is out-learned photographer ‘Heidi is a (fully trained) photographer.’

b.

Eg reknar Heidi som (ut-lært) fotograf. I count Heidi as out-learned photographer ‘I consider Heidi a fully trained photographer.’

c.

Eg reknar *(ein) (ut-lært) fotograf som ein I count an out-learned photographer as a handverkar. craftsperson ‘I consider a (fully trained) photographer a craftsperson.’

If we now take an equative statement like the one in (7.41a), we see from (7.41b) and (7.41c) that it is not good as a complement of ‘consider’, regardless of which of the two nominal phrases is put in the predicate position. (7.41) a.

NORWEGIAN Den mann-en er Christer Platzack. that man-DEF is Christer Platzack ‘That man is Christer Platzack.’

b. # Eg reknar den mann-en som Christer Platzack. I consider that man-DEF as Christer Platzack ‘I consider that man Christer Platzack.’ c. # Eg reknar Christer Platzack som den mann-en. I consider Christer Platzack as that man-DEF ‘I consider Christer Platzack that man.’ The most likely explanation for this is that neither nominal phrase is of the predicate type semantically. But note that a nominal phrase can be a predicate even if it is not good as a predicate under ‘consider’. For example, although we would take doktor “doctor” to be the predicate in (7.42a), the construction in (7.42b) comes out as semantically odd because whether or not Berit is a doctor is not normally a matter of opinion.

PREDICATES AND ARGUMENTS

(7.42) a.

NORWEGIAN Berit er doktor. Berit is doctor ‘Berit is a doctor.’

271

b. # Eg reknar Berit som doktor. I consider Berit as doctor ‘I consider Berit a doctor.’

The conclusion is that nominal phrases that are not acceptable in predicate position under ‘consider’ may or may not be predicates. But crucially, those that are acceptable in this position are definitely predicates, and consequently, embedding under ‘consider’ can be used to positively identify a constituent as a predicate. 7.3.2 Topicalisation In Scandinavian, topicalisation is another test for predicatehood. As Pereltsvaig (2001) points out, only if the postcopular constituent is a true predicate can it undergo topicalisation in these languages, such that it moves to clause-initial position while the subject stays in place. The test is based on the fact that when the predicate moves to front in a negated copular construction, the subject will still precede the negation. Irrelevantly, the verb will move across the subject to yield V2 order. I show in (7.43) that this holds for a copular construction with a nominal predicate, and in (7.44), I show the same thing for a copular construction with an adjectival predicate. (The switch from Norwegian to Swedish is not significant.) (7.43) a.

SWEDISH Berit är inte läkare. Berit is not doctor ‘Berit is not a doctor.’

(7.44) a.

SWEDISH Berit är inte dum. Berit is not stupid ‘Berit is not stupid.’

b.

Läkare är Berit inte. doctor is Berit not ‘A doctor, Berit is not.’

b.

Dum är Berit inte. stupid is Berit not ‘Stupid, Berit is not.’

In an equative statement, by contrast, the two nominal phrases may switch positions, so that one or the other becomes the topic. But regardless of which phrase is the topic, the other phrase will follow the negation. Thus, if we start from the equative statement in (7.45a) and want to make Christer Platzack the topic, we cannot do this simply by moving Christer Platzack, as in (7.45b); we also have to make sure that the other nominal phrase ends up following the negation, as in (7.45c).

272

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

(7.45) a.

SWEDISH Prefekt-en på nordiska är inte Christer Platzack. prefect-DEF at Nordic is not Christer Platzack ‘The prefect of the Nordic languages department is not Christer Platzack.’

b. # Christer Platzack är prefekt-en på nordiska inte. Christer Platzack is prefect-DEF at Nordic not ‘Christer Platzack, the prefect of the Nordic languages department is not.’ c.

Christer Platzack är inte prefekt-en på nordiska. Christer Platzack is not prefect-DEF at Nordic ‘Christer Platzack is not the prefect of the Nordic languages department.’

What has happened in (7.45c) is that Christer Platzack has become the surface subject. We can conclude that an equative statement does not allow the postcopular nominal phrase to be topicalised. In a nominal predicative construction, on the other hand, the predicate may well be topicalised and thereby moved across the subject. 7.3.3 Pseudoclefting and nonrestrictive relatives Zamparelli (2000) points to two additional differences between predicative and referential nominals: predicative nominals but not referential nominals can be predicates in pseudocleft constructions (as originally observed by Fodor 1970), while referential nominals but not predicative nominals can combine with nonrestrictive relative clauses such that the relativised constituent refers to an individual.10 I show below that this is true also of Scandinavian. In (7.46a), we see that an adjectival predicate can be pseudoclefted, and in (7.46b), we see that a nominal predicate can also undergo this operation. If we on the other 10 But as Doron (1988) notes, nominal predicates can combine with nonrestrictive relative

clauses where a property-denoting expression is relativised. She gives the following English example: (i) John is a considerate man, which is a rare thing to be. The same holds true for Scandinavian, as the Norwegian example in (ii) indicates. A complicating detail is however that the actual correlate of the relative clause will often be spelled out as the pronoun noe, so that we get an appositive construction rather than a relative clause combining directly with the nominal predicate. (ii)

John er ein omtenksam mann, (noe) som ikkje er altfor vanleg. John is a considerate man something RC not is too common ‘John is a considerate man, which is not too common.’

PREDICATES AND ARGUMENTS

273

hand pseudocleft the referential nominal phrase in (7.46c), the result is semantically odd. (7.46) a.

b.

SWEDISH Det Berit är, är jätte-duktig. it Berit is is giant-skilful ‘What Berit is, is extremely skilful.’ Det Berit är, är lärare. it Berit is is teacher ‘What Berit is, is a teacher.’

c. # Det den mann-en är, är Christer Platzack. it that man-DEF is is Christer Platzack ‘What that man is, is Christer Platzack.’ The nonrestrictive relative clause test is shown in (7.47). The BSN in (7.47a), which unmistakably is a predicate, does not combine with the nonrestrictive relative clause, whereas the determined nominal in (7.47b) and the name in (7.47c) are fine together with the same nonrestrictive relative clause. (7.47) SWEDISH a. * Berit är lärare, som jag Berit is teacher RC I

för övrigt känner väl. by the way know well

b.

Berit är en lärare, som jag för övrigt känner väl. Berit is a teacher RC I by the way know well ‘Berit is a teacher, who I by the way know well.’

c.

Den mann-en är Christer Platzack, som jag för övrigt that man-DEF is Christer Platzack RC I by the way känner väl. know well ‘That man is Christer Platzack, who I by the way know well.’

The reason for the contrast is that a referential interpretation is available for the postcopular nominals in (7.47b) and (7.47c) but not for the postcopular nominal in (7.47a). 7.3.4 Coordination Zamparelli (2000) points out that although the copular constructions in (7.48a) and (7.48b) are both perfectly acceptable, coordinating the postcopular phrases of these two constructions, as in (7.48c), is not very successful.

274

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

(7.48) a. b. c. ??

ENGLISH (cf. Zamparelli 2000:132) Mark Twain was Samuel Clements. Mark Twain was a writer. Mark Twain was Samuel Clements and a writer.

Zamparelli’s explanation of this pattern goes as follows. In (7.48a) we have an equative statement. The two nominal phrases are both of argument size syntactically, and semantically they are both of type <e>. In (7.48b), by contrast, we have a predication structure, and in Zamparelli’s view this means that the postcopular phrase is smaller than the subject nominal syntactically and of type <e,t> semantically. Consequently, the two nominal phrases that are coordinated in (7.48c) are different both syntactically and semantically. Zamparelli concludes that the degraded status of the example is due to either a prohibition on coordinating two constituents of different semantic types, or to a corresponding restriction against coordinating different syntactic categories. More specifically, Zamparelli’s proposal concerning the syntax of nominal phrases is that a full DP is divided into three layers: a Strong Determiner Phrase (SDP), a Predicative Determiner Phrase (PDP) and a Kind Denoting Phrase (KIP), as sketched in (7.49). (7.49)

SDP SD

PDP PD

KIP KI

… NP

He further takes SDP to be headed by strong determiners, while PDP is headed by weak determiners, and he argues that argument nominal phrases are SDPs whereas predicative nominal phrases are PDPs. As for the KIP, it contains the NP and sometimes also adjectives. It is the constituent that we find embedded under kind of, as in ‘this kind of car’, and it can also appear as a predicate. Translated into my model, Zamparelli’s proposal would mean that nominal arguments are (at least) DPs, while nominal predicates are CardPs, or alternatively PossPs, since they can contain prenominal possessors, as we will see below. The KIP would correspond to αP or nP. If Zamparelli (2000) is right, one problem with (7.48c) is that an SDP (or DP) is coordinated with a PDP (or CardP), or in other words, that there is a violation of the restriction against coordinating constituents of different syntactic categories. However, Zamparelli himself gives other examples that seem to

275

PREDICATES AND ARGUMENTS

suggest that there is no such restriction after all. One of these examples is shown in (7.50). (7.50)

ENGLISH (Zamparelli 2000:8) That animal in the sun is [a cat] and [very pleased to be so].

Here a nominal predicate is coordinated with an adjectival predicate. Nevertheless, the result is not deviant in any way. To save the idea that conjuncts must be structurally similar, we could postulate that each predicate is actually a PredP (Bowers 1993b, Baker 2003), with an invisible Pred head that takes a nominal complement in the first case and an adjectival complement in the second case.11 Alternatively, we could give up the idea that conjuncts must be of the same syntactic category and assume instead that it suffices that they are semantically similar. This would still give the right prediction concerning (7.48c) since the conjuncts here are semantically different. Moreover, the same reasoning appears to hold also for the Scandinavian counterpart of (7.48), which is given in (7.51). In (7.51a) we arguably have an equative statement, whereas in (7.51b) the postcopular phrase is best interpreted as a predicate. And just like in English, the two nominal phrases cannot be coordinated, as (7.51c) shows. (7.51) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN Mark Twain var Samuel Clements. Mark Twain was Samuel Clements Mark Twain var ein Mark Twain was an

amerikansk American

c. * Mark Twain var S. C. og ein Mark Twain was S. C. and an

forfattar. writer amerikansk American

forfattar. writer

Again, the unacceptable coordination could be out for syntactic or semantic reasons. But given the example in (7.50) it seems best to conclude that in conjunction, semantic similarity is more important than syntactic similarity. However, another set of data presented in Zamparelli (2000) apparently cast doubt on this conclusion. Zamparelli argues that KIPs can be used as nominal predicates in Italian. He points to the fact that the determiner in the predicate is optional in examples like (7.52a) and (7.52b), and he takes the predicate to be a PDP if the determiner is present but a KIP if it is absent. Notably, coordinating phrases of these two different types is not possible, as we see in (7.52c). 11 See the discussion of the example given in chapter 5, fn. 28. And note, by the way, that an

adjective-selecting Pred could still be different from a noun-selecting Pred (see Baker 2003).

276

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

(7.52) a.

b.

ITALIAN (Zamparelli 2000:132) Gianni è (un) professore. Gianni is a professor Gianni è (un) avvocato Gianni is an lawyer

c. * Gianni è avvocato Gianni is lawyer

e un and a

professore professor

Zamparelli points out that the KIP predicate is licensed only under certain conditions—most typically it denotes a role. In any case, although Zamparelli takes the basic semantic function of the KIP to be reference to the kind, in which case its semantic type is <e>, it must presumably be of type <e,t> when it functions as a predicate, regardless of how this is accomplished. A PDP is always of the type <e,t> on his analysis. It follows that the two conjuncts in (7.52c) are of the same type semantically. Accordingly, Zamparelli assumes that the ungrammaticality of the coordination is a consequence of the conjuncts being syntactically dissimilar. In other words, in this case it seems that the syntactic category of the conjuncts matters more than their semantic type. Similar cases in Scandinavian give a somewhat different picture, though. In addition to having BSN predicates, as we saw in the preceding section, Scandinavian also allows postcopular nominals to have determiners, as in (7.53a). But if we coordinate nominals in postcopular position and one of them appears in the bare form, the other must also do so, as indicated in (7.53b). (7.53) a.

NORWEGIAN Else er {ein advokat/ein professor}. Else is a lawyer/a professor ‘Else is a lawyer/a professor.’

c.

Else er advokat og (*ein) professor. Else er lawyer and a professor ‘Else is a lawyer and a professor.’

d.

Else er ein professor (som eg kjenner). Else is a professor RC I know ‘Else is a professor (that I know).’

This is seemingly in accordance with Zamparelli’s account of the corresponding Italian construction. I suspect, though, that the obligatory absence of the determiner in the second conjunct has more to do with semantics than with syntax. While a term denoting a profession gets a purely intensional reading

PREDICATES AND ARGUMENTS

277

when it appears in predicate position without a determiner, an extensional reading is preferred when there is a determiner but no adjectives, as in (7.7a). The example in (7.7c), where the suggested continuation sounds perfectly natural, is meant to show this. Hence, the reason why the coordination of a BSN with a determined nominal in (7.7b) is not successful could be that it involves one nominal with an intensional reading and another with an extensional reading. We are then not dealing with coordination of predicates, but instead with coordination of a predicate and a referential expression, which is what leads to ungrammaticality. We have however also seen that there are nominal predicates in Scandinavian where the indefinite determiner preferably should appear, or more precisely, where the version with an indefinite determiner is appropriate in more contexts than the version without. Another example of this is given in (7.54a). Strikingly, there are no problems with coordinating such a predicate with a BSN. I show this in (7.54b). (7.54) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN Else er #(ein) ivrig svømmar. Else is an eager swimmer ‘Else is an eager swimmer.’ Else er advokat og ein ivrig svømmar. Else is lawyer and an eager swimmer ‘Else is a lawyer and an eager swimmer.

The grammaticality of (7.54b) suggests again that a coordination is acceptable if the conjuncts are of the same type semantically, which is the opposite of what Zamparelli’s account of the Italian data in (7.52) led us to conclude. I therefore think that Zamparelli is wrong, and moreover, I suspect that the postcopular nominal phrases in (7.52c) are semantically different after all, such that the first one only has an intensional reading while the second one can get an extensional reading as well. 7.3.5 Summing up the tests To sum up the tests discussed in this section, we have seen that a nominal predicate can be in predicate position under ‘consider’, it will leave the subject in front of the negation when it is topicalised, and it will also allow pseudoclefting, but it cannot combine with a nonrestrictive relative clause. A referential nominal phrase, by contrast, can be in subject position under ‘consider’, and when it is topicalised, it will not allow another phrase to stay in the subject position. Moreover, it does not allow pseudoclefting, but it can combine with a nonrestrictive relative clause.

278

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

My conclusion with respect to the coordination test is that it is not a good tool for distinguishing between predicates of different types, or between PredPs with complements of different types. It can however be used to show that two phrases are not of the same semantic type, as when we try to coordinate a predicative nominal phrase and one that is referential. 7.4 The size of predicate nominals Armed with the tests that were discussed in the preceding section, we can now attack the question of the size of predicate nominals, with Scandinavian as our testing ground. 7.4.1 Definite nominal phrases First of all, it is clear that definite nominal phrases can be predicates (as pointed out e.g. by Partee 1987). For example, if we start from a simple copula construction as the one in (7.55a), with a definite nominal in postcopular position, we can embed it under ‘consider’ and have the definite nominal in predicate position, as in (7.55b), and we can topicalise the definite nominal and have the subject stay in place, as in (7.55c). Further, the definite nominal phrase can be pseudoclefted, as in (7.55d), and it can be coordinated with an adjectival phrase, as in (7.55e). (7.55) a.

NORWEGIAN Jenny er vinnar-en. Jenny is winner-DEF ‘Jenny is the winner.’

b.

Eg anser Jenny som vinnar-en. I consider Jenny as winner-DEF ‘I consider Jenny (to be) the winner.’

c.

Vinnar-en er Jenny ikkje. winner-DEF is Jenny not ‘The winner, Jenny is not.’

d.

Det Jenny er, er vinnar-en. it Jenny is is winner-DEF ‘What Jenny is, is the winner.’

e.

Jenny er yngst av all-e og vinnar-en av løp-et. Jenny is youngest of all-PL and winner-DEF of race-DEF ‘Jenny is youngest of all and the winner of the race.’

PREDICATES AND ARGUMENTS

f.

279

Jenny er vinnar-en, som forresten kjem her. Jenny is winner-DEF that by.the.way come.PRES here ‘Jenny is the winner, who by the way comes here.’

Hence, the definite nominal vinnaren “the winner” can be a predicate. However, this fact does not tell us much about which projections predicates can contain. Since the suffixed definiteness marker represents the n head in Norwegian, we can only conclude that predicates can be at least nPs, which we knew already from the preceding discussion of BSNs. Concerning the following example, some speakers think that the presence or absence of the definite marker on the postcopular noun does not make much difference. Others, however, find (7.56b) unacceptable. (7.56) a.

NORWEGIAN Røkke er stein-rik og eigar av halv-e fiske-flåt-en. Røkke is stone-rich and owner of half-DEF fish-fleet-DEF ‘Røkke is immensely rich and owner of half the fishing fleet.’

b. % Røkke er stein-rik og eigar-en av halv-e fiske-flåt-en. Røkke is stone-rich and owner-DEF of half-DEF fish-fleet-DEF ‘Røkke is immensely rich and the owner of half the fishing fleet.’ Presumably, the reason is that whereas the postcopular BSN in (7.56a) must be nonreferential, the same noun can be referential in (7.56b), where it has a suffixed definiteness marker. I suspect that this leads some speakers to treat it as referential, and consequently, they do not accept the coordination. 7.4.2 Possessed nominal phrases We will now see that possessed nominal phrases, which are normally definite in Scandinavian, as shown in the previous chapters, can also be used as predicates. For example, in Norwegian the phrase Kari sin katt “Kari’s cat”, introduced in (7.57a), can be in the predicate position under ‘consider’, as in (7.57b). The fact that Buster is bad in predicate position in (7.57c) is another indication that of the two nominal phrases in the complement of ‘consider’ it is Kari sin katt that is the predicate. In (7.57d) we see that when Kari sin katt is topicalised, Buster may still occupy the subject position. The example in (7.57e) shows that Kari sin katt can be pseudoclefted, and finally, in (7.57f) we see that Kari sin katt can be coordinated with an adjective, which can be no other than a predicate. The conclusion is that Kari sin katt can indeed be a predicate.

280

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

(7.57) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN Buster er Kari sin katt. Buster is Kari POSS.M.SG cat ‘Buster is Kari’s cat.’ Eg reknar Buster som Kari sin I count Buster as Kari POSS.M.SG ‘I consider Buster Kari’s cat.’

c. # Eg reknar Kari sin I consider Kari POSS.M.SG ‘I consider Kari’s cat Buster.’

katt. cat

katt som Buster. cat as Buster

d.

Kari sin katt er Buster ikkje. Kari POSS.M.SG cat is Buster not ‘Kari’s cat, Buster is not.’

e.

Det Buster er, er Kari sin it Buster is is Kari POSS.M.SG ‘What Buster is, is Kari’s cat.’

f.

Buster er sju år gammal og Kari sin Buster is seven years old and Kari POSS.M.SG ‘Buster is seven years old and Kari’s cat.’

katt. cat

katt. cat

But of course, the very same nominal phrase can also be referential. Accordingly, the word order in (7.58a) is possible alongside (7.57d). The example in (7.58a) must be the negation of the equative statement in (7.58b), where Kari sin katt is the subject. Hence, Kari sin katt is referential in (7.58a) and (7.58b). And in (7.58c), we see that this nominal phrase can combine with a nonrestrictive relative clause, which is another clear indication that it can be referential. (7.58) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN Kari sin katt er ikkje Buster. Kari POSS.M.SG cat is not Buster ‘Kari’s cat is not Buster.’ Kari sin katt er Buster. Kari POSS.M.SG cat is Buster ‘Kari’s cat is Buster.’

281

PREDICATES AND ARGUMENTS

c.

Buster er Kari sin katt, som forresten sit Buster is Kari POSS.M.SG cat RC by.the.way sits ‘Buster is Kari’s cat, who by the way is sitting there.’

der. there

Let us now consider what the consequences would be of maintaining that Kari sin katt is syntactically smaller in (7.57), where it is a predicate, than in (7.58), where it is referential. The only possibility that my model opens up as far as the predicate is concerned is that it is a PossP. Recall that in the preceding chapter, I concluded that the possessive marker sin is the spellout of the Poss head, which I took to be the head immediately below D. The sequence of heads and projections that I proposed for the maximally expanded DP is repeated in (7.59). (7.59)

[DP D [PossP Poss [CardP Card [αP α [nP n [NumP Num [NP N ]]]]]]]

If the DP projection is missing in nominal predicates, the syntactic structure of the predicate Kari sin katt must be as shown in (7.60), with the possessor Kari in Spec-PossP. (7.60)

[PossP Kari [Poss sin [nP katt ]]]

According to the proposal I put forward in the preceding chapter, prenominal possessors always move to Spec-PossP anyway. We might therefore tentatively say, although this view will be revised shortly, that the difference between a referential nominal phrase and a predicate is that in a referential nominal phrase, a D head will merge with PossP and attract the possessor to Spec-DP, whereas the D will not be merged if the phrase is a predicate. Another fact about predicative nominal phrases containing possessors is that they do not get an inclusive reading; that is, they are not uniquely referring. This has been observed before, for example by Holmberg (1993), Schoorlemmer (1998), Lyons (1999), Zamparelli (2000) and Vangsnes (1994, 1999), and I illustrate it in (7.61). (7.61)

NORWEGIAN Fred er bror-en min og Gunnar er også Fred is brother-DEF.M.SG my.M.SG and Gunnar is also bror-en min. brother-DEF.M.SG my.M.SG ‘Fred is my brother and Gunnar is my brother too.’

As the acceptability of this coordination structure indicates, although the nominal predicate broren min “my brother” is formally singular and definite, it does not trigger the presupposition that the speaker has only one brother, not even in

282

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

the actual discourse universe. In chapter 5 I argued that the formal definiteness of possessed nominal phrases like broren min is a consequence of n being the licenser of the possessor. If the possessed nominal phrase is a DP, D will agree with n and therefore also be definite. In the normal case, a DEFINITE feature in D will lead to an inclusive reading (see chapter 2, section 2.3). On this background the semantics of the nominal predicate shown above might be taken to suggest that it does not contain a D head. In fact, in my model need not be bigger than nP, since nP contains both the suffixed head noun and the postnominal possessor. Not all possessed nominal phrases in Scandinavian pass the predicate test, though. As we see in (7.62), the (Norwegian) phrase den gamle katten min “my old cat”, with a postnominal possessor and a preadjectival determiner, can follow the copula, but it is not good in predicate position under ‘consider’, it cannot be fronted as a predicate, nor can it be pseudoclefted, and coordinating it with a predicative adjective is not successful. On the other hand, it accepts a nonrestrictive relative clause without problems. (7.62) a.

NORWEGIAN Buster er den gaml-e katt-en min. Buster is DEF.SG old-DEF cat-DEF my.M.SG ‘Buster is my old cat.’

b. # Eg reknar Buster som den gaml-e katt-en min. I count Buster as DEF.SG old-DEF cat-DEF my.M.SG ‘I consider Buster my old cat.’ c. # Den gaml-e katt-en min DEF.SG old-DEF cat-DEF my.M.SG ‘My old cat, Buster is not.’

er Buster ikkje. is Buster not

d. # Det Buster er, er den gaml-e katt-en min. it Buster is is DEF.SG old-DEF cat-DEF my.M.SG ‘What Buster is, is my old cat.’ e. ?* Buster er intelligent og den gaml-e katt-en min. Buster is intelligent and DEF.SG old-DEF cat-DEF my.M.SG ‘Buster is intelligent and my old cat.’ f.

Buster er den gaml-e katt-en min, som forresten Buster is DEF.SG old-DEF cat-DEF my.M.SG RC by.the.way sit der. sits there ‘Buster is my old cat, who by the way is sitting there.’

283

PREDICATES AND ARGUMENTS

All these properties point to the same conclusion: den gamle katten min can only be a referential nominal phrase. One could propose that this should be attributed to the presence of the free definite determiner, if the free definite determiner can only be inserted in D, so that a nominal phrase containing a free definite determiner must be a DP. It should also be noted that den could not be left out in (7.62). In other words, it appears that if an adjective is added to a nominal phrase with a postnominal possessor, D must also be included in the derivation. It appears however that the suggestions I have given above concerning the internal syntax of predicative nominals need to be revised. Consider the examples in (7.63), where the predicate tests are applied to the nominal phrase den beste venen min “my best friend”. As we see, this phrase actually passes the predicate tests! It can be in predicate position under ‘consider’, it can be fronted as a predicate, it can be pseudoclefted, and it can be coordinated with an adjective. The fact that it combines with a nonrestrictive relative clause, as in (7.63f), means that it can also be a referential nominal phrase, but in (7.63b) through (7.63e) it is nevertheless a predicate. (7.63) a.

NORWEGIAN Helge er den best-e Helge is DEF.SG best-DEF ‘Helge is my best friend.’

ven-en min. friend-DEF my.M.SG

b.

Eg reknar Helge som den best-e I count Helge as DEF.SG best-DEF min. my.M.SG ‘I consider Helge my best friend.’

ven-en friend-DEF

c.

Den best-e ven-en min DEF.SG best-DEF friend-DEF my.M.SG ‘My best friend, Helge is not.’

er Helge is Helge

d.

Det Helge er, er den best-e it Helge is is DEF.SG best-DEF ‘What Helge is, is my best friend.’

ven-en min. friend-DEF my.M.SG

e.

Helge er snill og den best-e Helge is kind and DEF.SG best-DEF ‘Helge is kind and my best friend.’

ven-en min. friend-DEF my.M.SG

ikkje. not

284

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

f.

Helge er den best-e ven-en min, som forresten Helge is DEF.SG best-DEF friend-DEF my RC by.the.way sit der. sits there ‘Helge is my best friend, who by the way is sitting there.’

But although den beste venen min can be a predicate, the result is bad if a proposition with this predicate is coordinated with another proposition with the same predicate. I show this in (7.64). (7.64) NORWEGIAN # H. er den best-e ven-en min H. is DEF.SG best-DEF f riend-DEF my.M.SG den best-e ven-en min. DEF.SG best-DEF friend-DEF my.M.SG ‘H. is my best friend and P. is my best friend.’

og P. er and P. is

The degraded status of (7.64) compared to (7.63) is however not evidence that den beste venen min cannot be a predicate. The problem with (7.64) is simply that for semantic reasons, this predicate cannot be felicitously be predicated of more than one subject at a time. What is particularly interesting about (7.62) and (7.63) is that the nominal phrases den gamle katten min and den beste venen min look exactly parallel in form, except that the adjective is in the positive grade in the former and in the superlative grade in the latter. It is not immediately clear how this should be connected to the difference in syntactic structure that is assumed by theories that take predicative nominals to be syntactically smaller than referential nominals. We would have to say that the determiner den is in D in (7.62) but lower down in (7.63), for example in PossP, which then correspond to Zamparelli’s PDP—according to him, not only indefinite determiners but also definite determiners can appear in PDP. What I will propose is however that we give up the idea that nominal predicates have a different syntactic structure from nominal arguments. It appears instead that a nominal predicate is distinguished by having an intensional interpretation, as opposed to an argument, which can have an extensional interpretation. But crucially, the intensional/extensional contrast does not correlate with a structural contrast, on my view. Concerning (7.64) we would then say that the possibility of coordinating the two predications, having the same possessed nominal broren min “my brother” as their predicate, is not due to the syntax of this predicate but to its semantics. Syntactically, broren min is a DP here as elsewhere, but since it functions as a predicate in this case, it is not referential. Consequently, it does not have inclusive reference either.

PREDICATES AND ARGUMENTS

285

An argument in support of the claim that the distinction between nominal arguments and nominal predicates is purely semantic can be developed with the examples in (7.62) and (7.63) as starting point. The adjective plus noun combinations found in these examples can both be turned into compounds, which can appear in determinerless possessed nominals of the same form as broren min. In (7.65) and (7.66) I show that if the possessed compounds are run through the predicate tests, the result is parallel to what we get when the adjective is syntactically separate from the noun. That is, gammelkatten min “my old-cat” is just as bad in predicate function as den gamle katten min “my old cat”, whereas bestevenen min “my best-friend” is just as good as den beste venen min “my best friend”. (7.65) a.

NORWEGIAN Buster er gammel-katt-en min. Buster is old-cat-DEF my.M.SG ‘Buster is my old cat.’

b. # Eg reknar Buster som gammel-katt-en min. I count Buster as old-cat-DEF my.M.SG ‘I consider Buster my old cat.’ c. # Gammel-katt-en min old-cat-DEF my.M.SG ‘My old cat, Buster is not.’

er Buster ikkje. is Buster not

d. # Det Buster er, er gammel-katt-en min. it Buster is is old-cat-DEF my.M.SG ‘What Buster is, is my old cat.’ e. ?* Buster er intelligent og gammel-katt-en min. Buster is intelligent and old-cat-DEF my.M.SG ‘Buster is intelligent and my old cat.’ f.

(7.66) a.

Buster er gammel-katt-en min, som forresten sit Buster is old-cat-DEF my RC by.the.way sits ‘Buster is my old cat, who by the way is sitting there.’ NORWEGIAN Helge er beste-ven-en min. Helge is best-friend-DEF my.M.SG ‘Helge is my best friend.’

der. there

286

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

b.

Eg reknar Helge som beste-ven-en min. I count Helge as best-friend-DEF my.M.SG ‘I consider Helge my best friend.’

c.

Beste-ven-en min er Helge best-friend-DEF my.M.SG is Helge ‘My best friend, Helge is not.’

d.

Det Helge er, er beste-ven-en min. it Helge is is best-friend-DEF my.M.SG ‘What Helge is, is my best friend.’

e.

Helge er kjekk og beste-ven-en min. Helge is handsome and best-friend-DEF my.M.SG ‘Helge is handsome and my best friend.’

f.

Helge er beste-ven-en min, som forresten sit der. Helge is best-friend-DEF my RC by.the.way sits there ‘Helge is my best friend, who by the way is sitting there.’

ikkje. not

Each of the nominal phrases tested for predicatehood in (7.65) and (7.66) consists of a complex nominal and a postposed possessor. In my model, they only contain elements that are generated inside nP. To connect the difference in behaviour to a difference in structure we would have to say that gammelkatten min in (7.65) nevertheless projects a full DP, whereas bestevenen min in (7.66) does not. In the case at hand, there is however no independent motivation for such a move. Instead, I think the difference between (7.65) and (7.66) is purely semantic: because of its lexical content, the nominal phrase bestevenen min can easily get an intensional interpretation, while this is much more difficult with the nominal phrase gammelkatten min. This is exactly the same contrast as we find between (7.62) and (7.63). Crucially, in neither case does it correspond to a difference in syntactic structure. 7.4.3 Possessors followed by numerals In contrast to what I have just said, Zamparelli (2000) points to an example which he takes as evidence that certain nominal phrases have a referential reading for purely structural reasons. Zamparelli notes that a possessed nominal phrase can be a predicate, and he gives the example in (7.67a) as an illustration. However, if a numeral is inserted after the possessor, as in (7.67b), the predicate behaviour of the nominal phrase as a whole is lost, according to Zamparelli, which is why the coordination is not good.12 12 But some native speakers of English actually find (7.67b) quite acceptable.

287

PREDICATES AND ARGUMENTS

(7.67) ENGLISH (Zamparelli 2000:136-137) a. These are Harold’s tools, and those, too, are Harold’s tools. b. * These are Harold’s four tools, and those, too, are Harold’s four tools. On Zamparelli’s interpretation, the possessive –s in (7.67a) is in PD and the possessor is in Spec-PDP. Hence, the possessed nominal phrase need not be more than a PDP, which enables it to be a predicate, in his view. In (7.67b), on the other hand, the numeral four is in PDP. The possessive –s must then be in a higher head. The only possibility is SD. Consequently, the nominal phrase as a whole must be an SDP, and because of this, it cannot function as a predicate, Zamparelli concludes. It is not very difficult, though, to find predicative nominal phrases where numerals are preceded by possessors. In (7.68) I show that the Norwegian nominal phrase Harold sine to beste bøker “Harold’s two best books” can indeed be a predicate. (7.68) a.

NORWEGIAN X og Y er Harold sine to best-e X and Y are Harold POSS.PL two best-DEF ‘X and Y are Harold’s two best books.’

bøk-er. book-PL

b.

Eg reknar X og Y som Harold sine I count X and Y as Harold POSS.PL best-e bøk-er. best-DEF book-PL ‘I consider X and Y Harold’s two best books.’

to two

c.

Harold sine to best-e bøk-er Harold POSS.PL two best-DEF book-PL ikkje. not ‘Harold’s two best books, X and Y are not.’

d.

Det X og Y er, er Harold sine to best-e it X and Y are is Harold POSS.PL two best-DEF bøk-er. book-PL ‘What X and Y are, is Harold’s two best books.’

er are

X og Y X and Y

Now if a referential reading of Harold’s four tools is forced for structural reasons in (7.67b), we would expect the same effect with Harold sine to beste bøker in (7.68). The fact that there is no such effect in (7.68) suggests that the

288

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

problem with (7.67b) is not what Zamparelli (2000) takes it to be. Firstly, a nominal phrase that contains a possessor in front of a numeral is not necessarily referential. Secondly, Zamparelli’s coordination test does not really identify predicates; what it does is pick out those predicates that can be true of more than one subject at a time. A postcopular nominal phrase that does not allow this kind of coordination may still be a predicate. For example, even though the examples in (7.68) show that it can be a predicate, Harold sine to beste bøker would fail Zamparelli’s test, since it cannot be true of more than one pair of books at any given time. Hence, other tests would be needed to find out whether or not Harold’s four tools can be a predicate. One such test is shown in (7.69). (7.69) ENGLISH a. I consider these Harold’s two best books. b.(#) I consider these Harold’s four tools. We see here that although Harold’s two best books is fine as a predicate, Harold’s four tools is less good. This contrast cannot be attributed to the syntactic structure of the expressions. But note that (7.69b) gets better if the possessor is emphasised, i.e. focused, so that the content of the numeral is treated as given information. This suggests that the awkwardness that is otherwise felt here has to do with the discourse properties of the predicate Harold’s four tools. 7.4.4 A note on adjectives The examples I have just given of predicate nominals may have given the impression that definite nominal phrases can be predicates only if they contain an adjective in the superlative. This is not true, though. In (7.70) I give an example of a nominal phrase with an adjective in the positive grade. This phrase is perfect as a predicate, and I take the reason to be that it readily gets an intensional reading. In fact, as indicated in (7.70f) it takes some effort to assign a referential interpretation to it. (7.70) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN Liv er den kunstnarleg-e i familie-n. Liv is DEF.SG artistic-DEF in family-DEF ‘Liv is the artistic member of the family.’ Dei reknar Liv som den kunstnarleg-e i familie-n. they count Liv as DEF.SG artistic-DEF in family-DEF ‘They consider Liv the artistic member of the family.’

PREDICATES AND ARGUMENTS

289

c.

Den kunstnarleg-e i familie-n er Liv ikkje. DEF.SG artistic-DEF in family-DEF is Liv not ‘The artistic member of the family, Liv is not.’

d.

Det Liv er, er den kunstnarleg-e i familie-n. it Liv is is DEF.SG artistic-DEF in family-DEF ‘What Liv is, is the artistic member of the family.’

e.

Liv er yngst og den kunstnarleg-e i familie-n. Liv is youngest and DEF.SG artistic-DEF in family-DEF ‘Liv is youngest and the artistic member of the family.’

f. (#) Liv er den kunstnarleg-e i familie-n, som forresten Liv is DEF.SG artistic-DEF in family-DEF RC by.the.way nyss fekk eit stipend. recently got IDF.SG grant ‘Liv is the artistic member of the family, who by the way recently got a grant.’ Hence, the effect of superlative adjectives in possessed predicative nominal phrases seems to be that they make an intensional reading more readily available. This does not in any way mean that a formally definite nominal phrase cannot be a predicate if it contains an adjective that is not in the superlative. 7.4.5 Strong quantifiers and demonstratives The investigation of nominal predicates in the preceding subsections leads to the conclusion that predicative nominal phrases as well as argumental nominal phrases can be DPs. What I will show now is that just like a nominal argument, a nominal predicate can even be larger than a DP. As argued in chapter 4, section 4.4, strong quantifiers take DP or DemP complements. In light of this, it is interesting to note that in the examples in (7.71) we see a nominal phrase that passes the predicate tests even though it contains a strong quantifier followed by a determiner. That is, given what was said in chapter 4 we would take this nominal phrase to have not only a DP layer but also a quantifier layer, a QP projection, on top of it. Nevertheless, it can function as a predicate. Again, I believe that the reason is purely semantic: because of its lexical content, the phrase allows an intensional reading, and consequently, it can be a predicate.

290

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

(7.71) a.

NORWEGIAN Dette er alle dei interessant-e plate-ne this is all.PL DEF.PL interesting-DEF record-DEF.PL mine. my.PL ‘This is all my interesting records.’

b.

Eg reknar dette som alle dei interessant-e I count this as all.PL DEF.PL interesting-DEF plate-ne mine record-DEF.PL my.PL ‘I consider this all my interesting records.’

c.

Alle dei interessant-e plate-ne all.PL DEF.PL interesting-DEF record-DEF.PL dette ikkje. this not ‘All my interesting records, this is not.’

d.

Det dette er, er alle dei interessant-e plate-ne it this is is all.PL DEF.PL interesting-DEF record-DEF.PL mine. my.PL ‘What this is, is all my interesting records.’

e.

Dette this mine, my.PL ‘This is away.’

mine my.PL

er is

er alle dei interessant-e plate-ne is all.PL DEF.PL interesting-DEF record-DEF.PL som eg forresten skal gi bort. RC I by.the.way shall give away all my interesting records, which I by the way will give

But as other linguists have already noted (e.g. Partee 1987, Adger & Ramchand 2003), nominal phrases containing demonstratives are not acceptable as predicates. This holds true also of Scandinavian, as illustrated in (7.72). (7.72) a.

NORWEGIAN Dei som skal opp til eksamen er desse student-a-ne. they RC shall up to exam are these student-PL-DEF ‘Those who will sit for the exam are these students.’

PREDICATES AND ARGUMENTS

291

b. # Eg reknar dei som skal opp til eksamen som desse I count they RC shall up to exam as these student-a-ne. student-PL-DEF ‘I consider those who will sit for the exam these students.’ c. # Desse student-a-ne er dei som skal opp til these student-PL-DEF are they RC shall up to eksamen ikkje. exam not ‘These students are those who will sit for the exam not.’ d. # Det dei som skal opp til eksamen er, er desse it they RC shall up to exam are are these student-a-ne. student-PL-DEF ‘What those who will sit for the exam are, are these students.’ e.

Dei som skal opp til eksamen er desse studentane, they RC shall up to exam are these students.DEF som forresten planlegg ein fest etterpå. RC by.the.way plan a party afterwards ‘Those who will sit for the exam are these students, who by the way are planning a party afterwards.’

The conclusion is that although a DemP can be contained in a QP, a QP can be a predicate but a DemP cannot. The latter fact should most likely be connected to the deictic content of the demonstrative, which makes it incompatible with an intensional interpretation. In other words, we have another indication that the ability to be a predicate is not directly connected to the size of the nominal phrase but has more to do with its semantics. This brings us back to Williams (1983) and Partee (1987), who argued that all nominal phrases can in principle be predicates, and that if a given nominal phrase is not good as a predicate, this is a consequence of its semantics (see also Doron 1988).13 Hence, summing up the discussion of the size of predicate nominals, I conclude that they can be DPs and even QPs. This means that a nominal predicate is not characterised by its category or by its internal syntactic structure, but by its semantics: its lexical content allows it to have a purely intensional interpretation.

13 Jackendoff (2002) expresses a similar idea: predicate nominals have descriptional content

but do not introduce new individuals.

292

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

It is still possible, though, that the special properties of nominal predicates have to do with the syntax, if the relevant syntax lies outside of the nominal phrase itself. More specifically, since I have already suggested that nominal predicates are embedded under Pred heads, there is the possibility that the contrast between nominal predicates and nominal arguments have to do with the Pred head. In the next section, we will take a closer look at this possibility. 7.4.6 The Pred head In Bowers (1993b), where the existence of Pred heads was first proposed, all predicates, both verbal and non-verbal, were taken to contain a Pred head. However, Baker (2003) argues that verbal predicates do not have Pred heads. Pred heads are needed only for categories that do not provide a position for a subject argument within their own extended projection; that is, nouns and adjectives. I will not repeat here the arguments that Baker provides in favour of his view. I will instead add an argument from Scandinavian. We have already seen that in Scandinavian, the element som sometimes shows up between the subject and the predicate in nonfinite predication structures. Som does not go with all types of predicates, however. In the examples below, som is obligatory with the nominal predicate in (7.73a) (which by the way is ambiguous in the same way as the English translation) and with the individual level adjectival predicate in (7.73b), but does not occur with the stage level adjectival predicate in (7.73c) or with the verbal predicate in (7.73d). Or more precisely, som can be added in (7.73c), but then we get an individual level reading! (7.73) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN Eg hugsar henne som barn. I remember her as child ‘I remember her as a child.’

Eg hugsar henne som lita. I remember her as little ‘I remember her as little.’ or ‘I remember her when she was little.’

c.

Eg hugsar henne full. I remember her drunk ‘I remember her drunk.’

d.

Eg hugsar henne I remember her ‘I remember her run.’

springe. run

PREDICATES AND ARGUMENTS

293

So it seems that som appears in nonfinite predication structures with predicates that are not eventive. Now if the properties associated with nominal predicates are due to the Pred head, we would expect Pred heads not to appear in equative constructions—or at least not Pred heads of the same type as those we find with nominal predicates. In order to see if this expectation is borne out, let us go back to the constructions that we have already taken to be equatives. I repeat some of them below, showing first that they are symmetrical in the sense that either nominal phrase can be the subject/topic, and that the other nominal phrase will then be in the nonsubject position following the negation: (7.74) a.

b.

(7.75) a.

b.

(7.76) a.

b.

(7.77) a.

NORWEGIAN Mark Twain var (ikkje) Samuel Clements. Mark Twain was not Samuel Clements Samuel Clements Samuel Clements NORWEGIAN Den mann-en that man-DEF

var (ikkje) Mark Twain. was not Mark Twain

er (ikkje) Christer Platzack. is not Christer Platzack

Christer Platzack er (ikkje) den mann-en. Christer Platzack is not that man-DEF NORWEGIAN Christer Platzack er (ikkje) prefekt-en på nordisk. Christer Platzack is not prefect-DEF at Nordic ‘Christer Platzack is (not) the prefect of the Nordic languages department.’ Prefekt-en på nordisk er (ikkje) Christer Platzack. prefect-DEF at Nordic is not Christer Platzack ‘The prefect of the Nordic languages department is (not) Christer Platzack.’ NORWEGIAN Buster er (ikkje) gammel-katt-en min. Buster is not old-cat-DEF my.M.SG ‘Buster is (not) my old cat.’

294

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

b.

(7.78) a.

b.

Gammel-katt-en min er (ikkje) old-cat-DEF my.M.SG is not ‘My old cat is (not) Buster.’

Buster. Buster

NORWEGIAN Dei som skal opp til eksamen er (ikkje) desse they RC shall up to exam are not these student-a-ne. student-PL-DEF ‘Those who will sit for the exam are (not) these students.’ Desse student-a-ne er (ikkje) dei som skal opp til these student-PL-DEF are not they RC shall up to eksamen. exam ‘These students are (not) the ones who will sit for the exam.’

The next step is to make all these expressions nonfinite and see what happens. Firstly, it is revealed that the expressions in (7.74) are not perfectly symmetrical after all. If one is aware that Mark Twain is a pen name while Samuel Clements is the real life name of the person behind that pen name, it is all right to use the matrix verb oppfatta “construed” in (7.79a), but it sounds odd if the matrix verb is hugsar “remember”. In (7.79b) the judgements are exactly the opposite. But more importantly, som appears again in all the examples below, and moreover, som is strictly obligatory. (7.79) a.

b.

(7.80) a.

b.

NORWEGIAN Eg oppfatta/#hugsar Mark Twain som Samuel Clements. I construed/remember Mark Twain as Samuel Clements ‘I took it that Mark Twain was Samuel Clements.’ Eg #oppfatta/hugsar Samuel Clements som Mark Twain. I construed/remember Samuel Clements as Mark Twain ‘I remember Samuel Clements (in his role) as Mark Twain.’ NORWEGIAN Eg oppfatta den mann-en som Christer Platzack. I construed that man-DEF as Christer Platzack ‘I took it that that man is Christer Platzack.’ Eg oppfatta Christer Platzack som den mann-en. I construed Christer Platzack as that man-DEF ‘I took it that Christer Platzack is that man.’

PREDICATES AND ARGUMENTS

(7.81) a.

b.

(7.82) a.

b.

(7.83) a.

b.

295

NORWEGIAN Eg oppfatta C. P. som prefekt-en på nordisk. I construed C. P. as prefect-DEF at Nordic ‘I took it that C. P. is the prefect of the Nordic languages dept.’ Eg oppfatta prefekt-en på nordisk som C. P. I construed prefect-DEF at Nordic as C. P. ‘I took it that the prefect of the Nordic languages dept. is C. P.’ NORWEGIAN Ho oppfatta Buster som gammel-katt-en min. she construed Buster as old-cat-DEF my.M.SG ‘She took it that Buster is my old cat.’ Ho oppfatta gammel-katt-en min som Buster. she construed old-cat-DEF my.M.SG as Buster ‘She took (the name of) my old cat to be Buster.’ NORWEGIAN Eg oppfatta dei som skal opp til eksamen som desse I construed them RC shall up to exam as these student-a-ne. student-PL-DEF ‘I took it that those who will sit for the exam are these students.’ Eg oppfatta desse student-a-ne som dei som I construed these student-PL-DEF as they RC skal opp til eksamen. shall up to exam ‘I took it that these students are the ones who will sit for the exam.’

In other words, in Scandinavian som shows up even in equatives when they are nonfinite. Hence, it appears that even equative statements involve a Pred head. Either this Pred head is of a special type, as proposed by Adger & Ramchand (2003), despite the fact that it is spelled out in the same way as the Pred head of predicates in Scandinavian, or else the only difference between equatives and predications is the referentiality of the lower nominal phrase. 7.5 Summary In this chapter I have addressed the claim that nominal phrases which function as predicates are structurally different from nominal arguments. I have argued that this claim does not go through, since in Scandinavian, bare singular nomi-

296

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

nals, which lack quantifier and determiner projections, can be arguments as well as predicates, as long as certain semantic requirements are met. The syntactic distinction between nominal predicates and nominal arguments is further challenged by the fact that in Scandinavian, nominal phrases that come out as predicates on a number of syntactic tests can be just as complex structurally as nominal phrases that appear in argument positions. The only difference is that arguments but not predicates can be DemPs, for semantic reasons. My conclusion is that nominal predicates differ from nominal arguments semantically, such that a nominal phrase can be a predicate only if it can be assigned a purely intensional interpretation. A nominal argument, by contrast, can have an intensional or an extensional interpretation. I have however not been able to connect this contrast to any systematic syntactic difference. This conclusion goes against recent theorising in the area, but it is in line with several proposals from the 1980s.

CHAPTER 8 SOME CROSSLINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVES

8.1 Introduction In the preceding chapters I have developed a syntactic model that primarily is intended to handle Scandinavian nominal phrases. We have seen that the amount of variation that we find in this particular empirical domain requires considerable flexibility to be built into the model. Yet it remains to show whether the proposals I have put forth in the discussion of Scandinavian DPs have any relevance outside of Scandinavian. It is highly desirable that they have, since a model that is valid only for Scandinavian must be considered false, given the leading idea that grammar is maximally uniform across languages. What I will do in this chapter is draw attention to certain points where crosslinguistic variation is expected according to my model. I also present some data which reflect variation at these points. As a working hypothesis, I assume that the basic syntactic structure of nominal phrases that I argued for in chapter 1 (the DP), chapter 4 (the projections above DP) and chapters 5 and 6 (the position of possessors) is not subject to variation. I assume instead that variation has to do with what is spelled out and where, as discussed in section 8.2, and with the movement operations that can take place inside the nominal phrase, as discussed in section 8.3. There is also considerable variation crosslinguistically with respect to the form and position of possessor phrases. This is taken up in section 8.4. Some final remarks follow in section 8.5. 8.2 Variation in spellout One source of variation in the form of nominal phrases that easily comes to mind has to do with spellout. That is, we would expect it to be possible for a functional element that is phonologically overt in one language or variety to be silent in another language or variety, and vice versa. And indeed, such cases are not difficult to find. 8.2.1 Languages with no visible n To take an example, while D has a phonological realisation in indefinite singular nominal phrases in all Scandinavian varieties except Icelandic, and both the n head and the D head can be spelled out in definite nominal phrases in

298

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

Faroese, Norwegian and Swedish, most nominal phrases in North Sami have no visible marking of definiteness or indefiniteness at all. Hence, the interpretation of the nominal phrases in (8.1) will have to be determined by the context: (8.1) a.

NORTH SAMI biila car.SG.NOM ‘a/the car’

b.

ruks-es biila red-ATTR car.SG.NOM ‘a/the red car’

But if a numeral is included in a North Sami nominal phrase, a construction like (8.2a) will get an indefinite interpretation. If a definite interpretation is intended, the discourse anaphoric element dat appears in front of the numeral, as in (8.2b).1 (8.2) a.

b.

NORTH SAMI guokte ruks-es biilla two.NOM red-ATTR car.SG.ACC/GEN ‘two red cars’ dat guokte ruks-es biilla those.NOM two.NOM red-ATTR car.SG.ACC/GEN ‘the/those two red cars’

Hence, it appears that D needs to be identified by a phonologically overt material in the DP projection in much the same way in North Sami as in Scandinavian. Accordingly, it is possible that nP has moved to Spec-DP in (8.1a) and that αP has moved in (8.1b). The difference between North Sami and Icelandic, for example, is then that North Sami has no overt realisation of definiteness features unless D itself is spelled out, as in (8.2b). But note that nominals in North Sami have morphological case. This suggests that case plays the same role in North Sami as in Icelandic; in other words, it is case rather than definiteness that is required to identify D. If we now turn to English, it seems that D has the same identification requirements here as in Scandinavian. But since n never gets a phonological realisation in English, the requirements of D have different syntactic consequences than in Scandinavian. When D is merged in English, it will search down the tree for a constituent that can be attracted to Spec-DP, just like I have 1 Dat is habitually classified as a demonstrative. However, unlike demonstratives indicating

position relative to speaker or hearer (there are four of these in North Sami), dat finds its referent in the discourse.

SOME CROSSLINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVES

299

claimed to be the case in Scandinavian. Remember that at this point of the derivation, the nP phase is already spelled out. However, since n does not have a phonological realisation, the nP will not suffice to identify D, and it will not be attracted to Spec-DP. Because of this, D itself is spelled out whether or not an adjective or numeral is present—see (8.3a) and (8.3b). (8.3) a. b. c.

ENGLISH a (red) car the (red) car my (red) car

But if there is a possessor in Spec-nP (I assume here that prenominal possessors in English are generated inside nP and move first to Spec-nP, just like I proposed for Scandinavian), the possessor will be attracted to Spec-PossP and from there to Spec-DP. Consequently, D is not spelled out in the presence of a prenominal possessor, as exemplified in (8.3c). 8.2.2 Multiple definiteness markers In my model several positions are recognised where a marker of definiteness or indefiniteness could occur. Such a marker can be a realisation of D or of n, and in the presence of an adjective it can be the realisation of an α head, which necessarily have the same features as n and D, and it can even belong to the extended projection of the adjective. Hence, whenever one comes across a marker of definiteness or indefiniteness it takes some examination of the language in question to establish the true nature of that marker. To give an example, Semitic languages are known to have definiteness marking on adnominal adjectives as well as on the noun itself, as the Hebrew nominal phrase in (8.4) illustrates. Note that the definiteness markers reflect the gender and number of the noun in addition to its definiteness. (8.4)

HEBREW (Sichel 2002:299) ha-mexonit ha-amerika’it DEF-car DEF-American ‘the red American car’

ha-aduma DEF-red

Since there are three definiteness markers in this phrase, they cannot all be accounted for by reference to n and D. At least one definiteness marker must have some other source. It is possible that the definiteness markers that are prefixed to the adjectives are the realisations of adjectival agreement inside the extended adjectival phrase. Recall that adjectival agreement is suffixed to the adjective in Scandinavian, and I analysed this as a result of movement of the adjectival root inside the adjectival phrase. But if adjectival roots do not move in Hebrew, at least not as high as they do in Scandinavian, it would be possible

300

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

for them to have a prefixed agreement marker (see Julien 2002b for a detailed discussion of this conception of wordhood). In the Balkan languages Albanian, Bulgarian and Rumanian, definiteness suffixes can appear on nouns or on adjectives. I will not go into a detailed discussion of the Balkan languages here (some suggestions are found in Julien 2002a), but I will present some data from Albanian. As the examples in (8.5) show, the definiteness marker in Albanian appears on the noun if the noun precedes the adjective, but on the adjective if the adjective precedes the noun. (8.5) a.

b.

ALBANIAN (Buchholz & Fiedler 1987) vajz-a e bukur girl-DEF.F.SG.NOM F.SG.NOM pretty ‘the pretty girl’ e

bukur-a pretty-DEF.F.SG.NOM ‘the pretty girl’ F.SG.NOM

vajzë girl

The marker e that precedes the adjectives in these examples reflects the gender, number and case of the head noun, and it appears in the same form in indefinite nominal phrases, as shown in (8.6a). Moreover, if a degree element is present, it will precede this marker, as we see in (8.6b). Hence, it seems clear that the e marker in these examples is the realisation of an element inside the adjectival phrase. (8.6) a.

b.

ALBANIAN (Buchholz & Fiedler 1987) një vajzë më e bukur a girl more F.SG.NOM pretty ‘a prettier girl’ beter e bukur-a vajzë very F.SG.NOM pretty-DEF.F.SG.NOM girl ‘the very pretty girl’

As for the distribution of the suffixed definiteness marker in Albanian, it seems to be the case that it only appears on constituents that have moved to Spec-DP. In the unmarked case this will be the noun, as in (8.5a). This must have to do with the fact that even an indefinite noun normally precedes all adjectives, as (8.6a) shows. But note that an indefinite noun will be preceded by the indefinite determiner. I see this as an indication that the noun moves to a position below D but above the adjectives. When the adjective precedes the noun, as in (8.5b), the adjective is focused, according to Dimitrova-Vulchanova & Giusti (1998). In this case, the adjective probably moves to the focus

SOME CROSSLINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVES

301

position high up in DP that I have postulated earlier. The alternation shown in (8.5) then means that if the noun has moved across the adjectives in a definite DP, or if there are no adjectives, the noun will be attracted to Spec-DP. If an adjective has moved across the noun for focus reasons, on the other hand, it is this adjective that will move to Spec-DP and give the definite D an identification. From the examples given above one might get the impression that the suffixed definiteness markers in Albanian are realisations of D. However, Dimitrova-Vulchanova & Giusti (1998) argue rather convincingly that when the definiteness marker is suffixed to an adjective in this language, it belongs to the extended projection of the adjective. They point out that when there is more than one adjective preceding the noun, each adjective must have a definiteness marker. This is illustrated in (8.7a). In addition, the definiteness marker does not appear at the end of the AP, but instead, it is suffixed to the adjectival head, so that it precedes the complement of the adjective, if there is one. This is illustrated in (8.7b).2 (8.7) a.

b.

ALBANIAN (Dimitrova-Vulchanova & Giusti 1998) e gjor-a dhe e vogl-a vajzë F.SG poor-DEF.F.SG.NOM and F.SG little-DEF.F.SG.NOM girl ‘the poor and little girl’ tepër besnik-u ndaj së extremely truthful-DEF.M.SG.NOM to his ‘the husband extremely truthful to his wife’

shoqes burrë wife husband

Hence, it appears that when an adjective appears with a suffixed definiteness marker and a preposed agreement marker, both markers are realisations of elements inside the adjectival phrase. The question is then which elements. My proposal is that the suffixed definiteness marker spells out an agreement element, so that it essentially corresponds to the adjectival inflection in Scandinavian,3 while the preposed agreement marker spells out a higher head, for example Q. On this analysis, the syntactic structure of the adjectival phrase in (8.6b) is as shown in (8.8).

2 But according to Dimitrova-Vulchanova (2003), whose informant is Dalina Kallulli, (8.7b) is

considerably degraded compared to (i), where the complex adjectival phrase follows the noun: (i)

burr-i besnik ndaj së shoqes husband-DEF truthful to his wife ‘the husband truthful to his wife’ 3 A related proposal is found in Cornilescu (1995).

302

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

(8.8)

QP beter

Q'

Q e

AgrP Agr

Deg A bukur

DegP Agr a

Deg

beter

Deg' Deg

AP | A

I take beter “very”, which is in initial position in the adjectival phrase in (8.6b), to have moved from Spec-DegP, since it can alternatively follow the adjective (Buchholz & Fiedler 1987). Since the adjectival root has moved to Agr on my analysis, the order Adjective > beter would be the result if beter stays in the position where it is first merged. Also note that the comparative marker më “more”, shown in (8.6a), will appear in the same position as beter in (8.6b), that is, in front of the agreement marker. For më the idea that there has been movement from Spec-DegP seems even more plausible. Hence, I postulate that elements generated in Spec-DegP normally move to Spec-QP in Albanian.4 If the definiteness markers that appear on adjectives in Albanian are not realisations of D, it is not necessarily the case that the definiteness markers that appear on nouns are realisations of D either. Instead, it is possible that both adjectives and nouns carry the definiteness marking with them when they move 4 This might also be the case in Scandinavian, even if I did not indicate it in the syntactic tree

in (2.40), for example. Notably, even if most nonaffixal quantifier or degree elements precede the adjective in Scandinavian, in Norwegian the element enda “even, still” can follow an adjective in predicate position: (i)a.

eit enda betre forslag an even better proposal ‘an even better proposal’

(ii)a. Dette forslag-et er enda betre. this proposal-DEF is even better ‘This proposal is even better.’ b.

Dette forslag-et er betre enda. this proposal-DEF is better even ‘This proposal is better still.’

b. * eit betre enda forslag a better even proposal

SOME CROSSLINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVES

303

to Spec-DP. The definiteness markers that appear suffixed to nouns are then most likely realisations of n, so that we must assume that nouns move to n also in Albanian. Apparent further movement of the noun is then movement of nP. If my account of definiteness markers in Albanian is correct, one main difference between Albanian and Scandinavian is that in Albanian, but not in Scandinavian, a definite adjectival phrase can move to Spec-DP and give the definite D an identification. This difference can also be seen when the noun is elided but an adjective spelled out. In such cases D must have its own phonological realisation in Scandinavian, as illustrated by the Swedish example in (8.9), which should be compared to the Albanian example in (8.10). (8.9)

SWEDISH Jag ta-r den röd-a. I take-PRES DEF.CG.SG red-DEF ‘I’ll take the red one.’

(8.10)

Albanian (Dalina Kallulli p.c.) Më pëlqen i kuq-i. me.DAT like M.SG red-DEF.M.SG.NOM ‘I like the red one.’

If the agreement marker i belongs to the adjectival phrase, just like its feminine counterpart e, I conclude that in Albanian a definite adjectival phrase can be the only visible constituent in the DP when the noun is elided. Hence, the adjectival phrase must be able to identify D. Hopefully, a deeper explanation for the difference between Albanian and Scandinavian in this respect will be found in the future. For the time being, I will only point out that there is probably a connection between this difference and another one. In Albanian, a phrase that does not move to Spec-DP will not be overtly definite, but no such generalisation can be made for Scandinavian. In Scandinavian, definiteness marking on adjectives normally co-occurs with an overtly realised D, or with an overtly realised n, or with both. In Albanian, by contrast, no other constituent is marked as definite if the adjective is overtly definite. The only case where there is more than one definiteness marker is when adjectives are coordinated, in which case both markers are contained in the phrase that moves to Spec-DP. Thus, it appears that in Albanian, definiteness in only interpretable in D. Interestingly, we saw in chapter 2, section 2.5 that something similar holds for Icelandic. In Icelandic, n is not spelled out when the αP that contains it does not move to SpecDP. Then D is spelled out instead. Because of this, I concluded that definiteness features are stronger in Icelandic than in the ‘double definiteness’ varieties of Scandinavian. However, the definiteness marking on adjectives cannot identify the definite D in Icelandic, as it does in Albanian. Hence, there seems

304

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

to be two parameters at work in the definiteness grammar of the languages under discussion here: firstly, the strength of the definiteness seen on adjectives, and secondly, the strength of definiteness in general. Albanian has strong definiteness in (the extended) AP as well as in nP, Icelandic has strong definiteness only in nP, whereas Faroese, Norwegian and Swedish have weak definiteness. Danish also clearly has weak definiteness in AP, while the Danish nP falls outside of the classification since it is never overtly definite. 8.3 Variation in movement It is well known that crosslinguistically, there is also considerable variation in the ordering of elements inside nominal phrases—more variation than we have seen so far in this book. There are nevertheless limits to the variation that we find. Greenberg (1963) formulated the following generalisation (his Universal 20), albeit on the basis of a somewhat modest sample of languages: When any or all of the items (demonstrative, numeral, and descriptive adjective) precede the noun, they are always found in that order. If they follow, the order is either the same or its exact opposite.

If nominal phrases universally have the base structure that I proposed in chapter 1, Greenberg’s generalisation has to be interpreted as follows. The surface order of elements inside a nominal phrase can be equal to the base-generated order, as in (8.11a), it can be the inverse of the base-generated order, as in (8.11b), or it can be like the base-generated order except that the noun appears at the front, as in (8.11c). (8.11) a. b. c.

Order of elements in nominal phrases Dem > Num > A > N N > A > Num > Dem N > Dem > Num > A

In what follows, we will see that these three main patterns are all found in the world’s languages. Following Cinque (1996, 2000) I take the order in (8.11a) to be the result of not moving anything, whereas the order in (8.11b) is derived by successive movement of projections to higher Specs from the bottom of the phrase upwards. The order in (8.11) is derived by moving the noun, or the nP, to the front. 8.3.1 The base-generated order We have already seen that Scandinavian normally displays the base-generated order, with certain exceptions: in Icelandic, a definite αP moves across numerals, and in Northern Swedish, it even moves across the demonstrative. I have also assumed that nP moves to the left of the spelled-out D in Danish, but since

SOME CROSSLINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVES

305

this movement leads to the D element being suffixed to the noun, its effect on ordering is less noticeable. In the ‘double definiteness’ varieties of Scandinavian, nP moves only when the higher projections in the DP are empty, so that this movement does not lead to any change in the ordering of visible elements. There are also languages outside of Scandinavian where the base-generated order surfaces (although not necessarily as the only option). Below I give some examples of this, picked more or less at random, but with the aid of Rijkhoff (2002). (8.12)

CANTONESE (Matthews & Yip 1994:88) gó sa ¯am jek hóu da ¯kyi ge that three CLASS very cute LP ‘those three very cute puppies’

(8.13)

HUNGARIAN (Valéria Molnár, p. c.) ez a két piros alma this DEF two red apple ‘these two red apples’

(8.14)

GEORGIAN (Testelec 1998:652) am or lamaz kal-s that.OBL two nice woman-DAT ‘to those two nice women’

(8.15)

Korean (Sohn 1999:300) na uy ku twu say chinkwu 1SG GEN that two new friend ‘those two new friends of mine’

gáu-jái puppy

tul PL

In the Cantonese example in (8.12) the classifier jek and the ‘linking particle’ ge need some comment. In my model, the classifier could be a realisation of the Card head, which has the numeral phrase in its Spec, or it could belong to the numeral phrase itself. Similarly, the ‘linking particle’ could be a realisation of the α head that has the adjectival phrase in its Spec, or of an element inside the (extended) adjectival phrase. Also note that Cantonese is an SVO language, just like Scandinavian, so it might not be very surprising, from a typological point of view, that it is also like Scandinavian in the nominal syntax. Hungarian, Georgian and Korean are however head-final in their verbal syntax, which means that main verbs precede auxiliaries, and more generally, elements that are generated low down in the verbal functional domain precede elements that are generated higher up. This has been analysed as the result of massive movement within the verbal domain (Kayne 1994, Koopman & Sza-

306

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

bolcsi 2000, Julien 2002b). In the nominal domains of these languages, by contrast, there appears to be very little movement. We see, though, that in the Korean example the nominal head has moved to the left of the number marker and the possessor to the left of the demonstrative. These movements could be interpreted as movement of N to Num or n and of the possessor to Spec-DemP. Still, the demonstrative, the numeral, the adjective and the noun appear in the order that I take to be the base-generated one. This indicates that there is no necessary correlation between the surface order of elements in the clause and the surface order of elements in the nominal phrase. Other languages show variations of the same basic pattern. In Tokelauan, for example, adnominal numerals and adjectives normally appear in relative clauses, so that they fall outside of the present discussion (Hovdhaugen et al. 1989). There are however a few adjectives that combine directly with the head noun. These adjectives are located between the determiner and the head noun, as exemplified by tama “small” in (8.16). (8.16)

TOKELAUAN (after Hovdhaugen et al. 1989) te tama vaka tenei DEF.SG small boat this ‘this small boat’

In this example the elements inside the DP surface in the base-generated order. The DP in its turn precedes the demonstrative, a fact that I take to mean that the whole DP has moved to the left, presumably to Spec-DemP. Now recall that movement of a lower projection (which I took to be αP) to the Spec of DemP is also seen in Northern Swedish. Hence, the nominal phrase in (8.16) can be derived by means of operations that have already been introduced in the discussion of Scandinavian. 8.3.2 Fronting of the nominal The second main type of nominal phrase pointed to by Greenberg’s Universal 20 has the noun in initial position, but other elements follow in the basegenerated order. I have already suggested that this pattern could be the result of moving nP to the front. Interestingly, there are indications that exactly this is marginally possible even in Scandinavian. At an earlier stage (Old Norse and Old Swedish), noun initial nominal phrases were quite common (Lars-Olof Delsing p.c.), but today this order is only retained in verse and in certain fixed expressions, as in the examples in (8.17) and (8.18).

SOME CROSSLINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVES

(8.17)

(8.18)

SWEDISH kristall-en crystal-DEF.CG.SG ‘the fine crystal’

den DEF.SG

307

fin-a fine-DEF

NORWEGIAN skog-en den grøn-e forest-DEF.M.SG DEF.SG green-DEF ‘the green forest’

As we see, the inflected noun has moved to the front of the free determiner, which I take to be located in D. Since I have already argued that the noun does not undergo head-movement across adjective phrases in Scandinavian, only to n, I assume that the whole nP has moved. This is supported by the intuition that it is not so bad to have a possessor between the head noun and the determiner, as in (8.19). (8.19) NORWEGIAN ? skog-en min forest-DEF.M.SG my.M.SG ‘my green forest’

den

grøn-e DEF.SG green-DEF

Even if this pattern is no longer part of the normal language usage, it seems clear to me that if a postnominal possessor is to be included at all, it must be in the position shown here. On my analysis, it is still in its base position inside nP. Also note that if the possessor had moved out of nP, the suffixed definiteness marker on the noun would not have been spelled out (see chapter 6, section 6.3.1). Hence, (8.19) can only been derived by fronting the whole nP, containing both the head noun and the possessor. As evidence that the nP has not moved higher than Spec-DP, one might point to the fact that if a demonstrative were to appear in the same nominal phrase, it would precede the noun and not follow it, as shown in (8.20). (8.20) a.

NORWEGIAN denne skog-en de-n grøn-e this.SG forest-DEF.M.SG DEF-SG green-DEF ‘this green forest’

b. * skog-en denne de-n grøn-e forest-DEF.M.SG this.SG DEF-SG green-DEF

308

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

If demonstratives head a projection DemP immediately above DP, as I have already argued, it follows that the fronted nP must occupy Spec-DP, as it does in the modern languages when no adjectives or numerals are present. While nP-raising across adjectives and numerals is no longer part of the standard repertoire in Scandinavian, it is fully alive in Nkore-Kiga: (8.21)

NKORE-KIGA (Taylor 1985:55) eki-tabo ky-a-we eky-o eki-hango eki-mwe 7-book 7-POSS-2SG 7-that 7-large 7-one eki-rikutukura 7-red ‘that single large red book of yours’

In this example, the head noun and the possessor precede the demonstrative, while adjectives follow the demonstrative. In my model, such an ordering can be achieved by moving N across the possessor, for example to n, and then moving the whole nP to initial position, for example to Spec-DemP. Also note that every element inside the nominal phrase shows class agreement with the head noun. This is interesting, since on my view it simply means that NkoreKiga makes visible the agreement relations inside the nominal phrase which I take to be present in all languages. Raising of nP is arguably also seen in the following examples, from Loniu and Nama: (8.22)

LONIU (Hamel 1994:95) kOlaw a yo EmE?iman sarong POSS 1SG red ‘my red sarong’

(8.23)

NAMA (Payne 1994:2852) =/kini-di ne !nona-di book-3PL.F these three-3PL.F ‘these three books of Gombates’’

!Gombates di-ni Gombates POSS-3PL.F

In (8.22) the head noun and the postnominal possessor both precede the adjective. It is tempting to suggest that this order is the result of raising an nP in which the head noun has moved to n and the possessor sits in the position where it was generated. The landing site of the nP must be above αP, but only a more detailed study of Loniu can tell us exactly where. As for (8.23), on my interpretation the order of elements in this nominal phrase is the result of the following movement operations. The nominal head moves to a functional head that is endowed with number and gender features. This head could be Num or n. The possessor is realised as a postpositional phrase, with a P that agrees with

SOME CROSSLINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVES

309

n, and the whole PP moves out of nP, to a position below Card. The nP then raises to a position in front of the demonstrative. As for the agreement marker that appears on the numeral, it could be the realisation of Card or of a functional element inside the quantifier phrase in Spec of CardP. A pattern related to what we have just seen is found in Irish. In this language, the head noun follows determiners and numerals but precedes adjectives, as shown in (8.24). (8.24)

IRISH (Máire Ní Chiosáin, p.c.) an da mhadra mór dubh seo DEF two dog big black this ‘these two big black dogs’

As we have seen before, the DP moves to Spec-DemP in Irish, so that all elements that are spelled out DP-internally will precede the demonstrative. In addition, the DP-internal elements, except for the head noun, are in the same order as they would be in Scandinavian or in English. If this is the base-generated order, as I am assuming, these elements have not moved. The head noun, however, must have moved from its base position to a position between the highest αP and the Card head. Concerning the question of the nature of the movement operation that displaces the Irish noun, Duffield (1996) assumes that it is head movement. The fact that a possessor will necessarily be left behind, as the examples in (8.25) illustrate, can be taken as support for Duffield’s analysis. (8.25) a.

b.

IRISH (Duffield 1996:318,333) guth láidir an tsagairt voice strong DEF priest.GEN ‘the priest’s powerful voice’ (an) mothú sin an tsaighdiúra DEF feeling that DEF soldier ‘that feeling of the soldier’

On the other hand, Cinque (2000) suggests that the movement operation in question affects the NP, which has been vacated by the possessor. A third possibility that easily comes to mind in the present context is that the nP moves. I will not discuss these alternatives here, however, since the point of bringing up Irish was only to indicate some of the variation that can be created by moving the noun upwards in the nominal phrase.

310

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

8.3.3 The inverse order The adjective ordering displayed by the Irish example in (8.24) should be compared to the ordering that we saw in the Hebrew example in (8.4), which is repeated below as (8.26). (8.26)

HEBREW (=8.4) ha-mexonit ha-amerika’it DEF-car DEF-American ‘the red American car’

ha-aduma DEF-red

In Hebrew, the adjectives and the noun appear in an order that is exactly the opposite of what I take to be the base-generated one. It has been proposed, by Sichel (2002), that in Hebrew nominal phrases there is roll-up movement, as first suggested by Kayne (1994) to account for the verbal syntax of head-final languages. In roll-up movement the lowest projection moves to the Spec of a higher projection, this projection in turn moves to an even higher Spec, and so on. The result is that in the surface syntax each element will be preceded by the constituent that starts out as its complement. For the example at hand, it would mean that ha-mexonit “DEF-car” has moved to the left of ha-amerika’it “DEFAmerican”, and then a constituent containing both these elements has moved to the left of ha-aduma “DEF-red”. Cinque (1996, 2000) proposes a similar analysis for Arabic. As demonstrated by Fassi Fehri (1998, 1999), there are several ordering possibilities in Arabic DPs. The noun can appear in initial position, as in (8.27a), or immediately after the demonstrative, as in (8.27b), or between a numeral and an adjective, as in (8.27c). (8.27) a.

ARABIC (Fassi Fehri 1998) l-suÌuf-u l-jadiidat-u DEF-newspapers-NOM DEF-new-NOM ‘these three new newspapers’

l-θalaaθ-u haaðihi DEF-three-NOM these

b.

haaðihi l-suÌuf-u l-jadiidat-u these DEF-newspapers-NOM DEF-new-NOM ‘these three new newspapers’

c.

kull-u θalaaθat-i kutub-in xadraa?-a masˇhuurat-in every-NOM three-GEN books-GEN green-GEN famous-GEN ‘all three famous green books’

l-θalaaθ-u DEF-three-NOM

In either case the elements that precede the numeral show the base-generated order, whereas elements following the noun show the inverse order. Cinque points out that roll-up movement would explain these ordering facts if we

SOME CROSSLINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVES

311

assume that only the steps that put the noun in front of all adjectives are obligatory, and that further movement of the phrase containing the noun and the adjectives to a Spec above the numeral, and of the phrase containing the numeral, the noun and the adjectives to a Spec above the demonstrative, are optional. In addition, when a strong quantifier is present it is even possible for the complement of the quantifier to move across it, as (8.28) shows. (8.28) a.

b.

ARABIC (Fassi Fehri 1998) kull-u l-kutub-i l-xadraa?-i l-θalaaθat-i all-NOM DEF-books-GEN DEF-green-GEN DEF-three-GEN ‘all the three green books’ l-kutub-u l-xadra?-u l-θalaaθat-u kull-u-haa DEF-books-NOM DEF-green-NOM DEF-three-NOM all-NOM-them ‘all the three green books’

More marginally, one can move only the noun to the front of the numeral, leaving the adjective behind: (8.29) ARABIC (Fassi Fehri 1998:37) ?? haaðihi l-suÌuf-u l-θalaaθ-u l-jadiidat-u these DEF-newspapers-NOM DEF-three-NOM DEF-new-NOM ‘these three new newspapers’ Presumably, what happens here is that after having moved to the position in front of the adjective, the nP (or some other phrase including the noun but not the adjective) moves on to an even higher position. But as we see, this is not quite as good as moving the whole projection that contains the noun and the adjective. On the analysis of Semitic DPs that I have just sketched, none of the definiteness markers can be realisations of D, since all elements that are marked as definite at have this marking whether they move or not. Hence, definiteness markers on adjectives must represent elements inside the extended adjectival projection, as Fassi Fehri (1998, 1999) also proposes, while the definiteness marker that is attached to the noun could be a realisation of n. It is possible that the noun does not move to n, so that the definiteness marker is attached to n in the phonology only. If N never moves on its own, only as a part of nP, n will stay adjacent to N, and the definiteness marker and the noun will be seen as a word (see Julien 2002b on this view of wordhood). In its spirit, this analysis is consistent with the proposal in Borer (1989) that the definiteness marker on the Semitic noun is “a base-generated feature on the head N”. It appears that roll-up movement in nominal phrases can also be seen in the Romance languages. Cinque (2003) argues that this is the source of the well-

312

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

known contrast in adjective ordering between Italian and English. As we see from the examples below, the ordering of adjectives in Italian nominal phrases is exactly the opposite of the ordering that we find in English nominal phrases. (8.30) ENGLISH (Cinque 2003) a. the American musical comedy of the ‘50s b. * the musical American comedy of the ‘50s (8.31) a.

ITALIAN (Cinque 2003) la commedia musicale americana de-gli Anni ‘50 DEF comedy musical american of-DEF.PL years 50 ‘the American musical comedy of the ‘50s’

b. * la DEF

commedia americana musicale comedy american musical

de-gli Anni ‘50 of-DEF.PL years 50

Assuming that the English order is the basic one, which is likely since there are no clear indications that there is much movement inside English nominal phrases at all, except with respect to possessors, Cinque concludes that the Italian order must be the result of roll-up movement. That is, a constituent containing the head noun (in my model, this could be nP) moves first to a position above the lower adjective, and then a constituent containing the noun and the lower adjective moves to a position above the higher adjective. The result is that the ordering of the noun and the adjectives is inverted. But note that unlike what happens in Semitic, roll-up movement in Italian does not affect the highest projection of the DP. As illustrated in (8.32), it stops below the numerals, so that the determiner and the numeral precede the noun and retain their base-generated relative order. (8.32)

ITALIAN le tre regol-e fundamental-i DEF.F.PL three rule-PL fundamental-PL ‘the three fundamental rules’

Since only one adjective is present here, the example looks similar to the Irish example in (8.24). But when more complex nominal phrases are taken into consideration, the difference can be observed: Italian has roll-up movement in the lower part of the DP, while Irish only has movement of the noun (or of nP). If the roll-up movement analysis of Semitic and Italian nominal phrases is on the right track it must be that case that in between the projections where the different DP-internal elements are generated, there can be positions that serve as landing sites for movement. For example, when the nP moves to a position above the nearest adjective, it must land above the Spec of that αP but below

SOME CROSSLINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVES

313

the next α head, if more than one adjective is present. Hence, either an αP can have more than one Spec, or else there can be projections in between the projections that we are now familiar with. Also recall that we have seen several examples in the foregoing chapters that I have interpreted as the result of raising a constituent to such an intermediate position. It is possible that the intermediate positions are potentially available in all languages, and that some languages make use of them more regularly than others. 8.4 Variation in possessor licensing When it comes to possessor licensing, we have already seen that there is considerable variation to be found even within Scandinavian. Looking outside of Scandinavian, we might expect to find many possessor constructions that bear some similarity to one or the other of the possessor constructions that we have already identified in Scandinavian. For example, it would be surprising if the relation between the possessor expression and the n head of the possessed nominal phrase which plays such a central role in Scandinavian could not also be found outside of Scandinavian. On the other hand, I suggested in chapter 6 that possessors in Italian bear no agreement relation to n or to D. Hence, it appears that Italian possessors have very little in common with their Scandinavian counterparts. In other words, also with respect to possessors there is more variation to be found in the world’s languages that what we can observe within Scandinavian. In this section, I first discuss Kotoko, a language with a possessor construction that my analysis of Scandinavian is able to shed some light on. In particular, the idea that possessors can be licensed by n seems to be useful when dealing with Kotoko. After that, I look at North Sami, a language where all possessors carry visible genitive case, and where n arguably has no role in possessor licensing at all. Crosslinguistically, many languages have possessor constructions of this type, and I therefore deal with one such language here in order to show how it fits into my model. 8.4.1 Possessors related to the n head In Kotoko, as described in Demeke (2002), DP-internal possessors are obligatorily preceded by an element that reflects the number, and in the singular also the gender, of the possessed noun. I show this with a nonpronominal possessor in (8.33) and with a pronominal one in (8.34). (8.33) a.

KOTOKO (Demeke 2002:73) dar yi Adam gunM M.SG Adam ‘Adam’s gun’

b.

làbà c´ Adam storyF F.SG Adam ‘Adam’s story’

314

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

c.

(8.34) a.

c.

dar-i t´ Adam gun-PL PL Adam ‘Adam’s guns’ KOTOKO (Demeke 2002:73) ahum ya-wa he-goat M.SG-1SG ‘my he-goat’

d.

làbá t´ Adam story.PL PL Adam ‘Adam’s stories’

b.

awa s-wa she-goat F.SG-1SG ‘my she-goat’

awi ta-wa goat.PL PL-1SG ‘my goats’

Demeke takes the agreement marking on the possessive pronouns to be an integrated part of these pronouns and thus not structurally identical to the markers that appear with non-pronominal possessors. However, I am not convinced that it is necessary to make such a distinction. For example, the nonpossessive pronoun for first singular is na. If we compare na to the wa that shows up in (8.34a), it may well be the case that the structural relation between the agreement marker ya and the pronoun wa here is the same as the relation between the agreement marker yi and the possessor expression Adam in (8.33a), and that the difference between na and wa is merely a matter of phonological realisation. To get a better understanding of the syntax of possessor constructions in Kotoko, we need to look at nominal phrases without possessors. As we see from (8.35), the noun precedes all adjectives, and the unmarked order of adjectives is the inverse of the base-generated order. (8.35) a.

c.

KOTOKO (Demeke 2002:86,94) hari mala nguna dog black big ‘a big black dog’ hari yi mala nguna dog DEF.M.SG black big ‘the big black dog’

b.

hari de dog DEF ‘the dog’

(de) DEF

These facts suggest that the roll-up movements that were postulated above for Italian and for Semitic languages also apply in Kotoko. In addition, the suffixed plural marker in (8.33c) is an indication that N moves at least to Num (the tone that marks the plural in (8.33d) is then also probably combined with the noun as a result of movement).

SOME CROSSLINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVES

315

Furthermore, we see from (8.35a) that indefiniteness is not overtly marked in this language. From (8.35b) we see that a definite noun will be followed by a definiteness marker. If no modifiers are present, this definiteness marker is de regardless of the gender or number of the head noun (Demeke 2002). But the really interesting pattern is seen when there are modifiers in the definite nominal phrase, as in (8.35c). Then the same agreement markers that showed up between the head noun and the possessor in (8.33) and (8.34) obligatorily intervene between the noun and the modifiers. Moreover, the definiteness marker de now becomes optional, but if it appears, it is in final position. Concerning the syntactic structure of (8.35c), I have the following proposal. The nP, which in this case contains only the nominal hari “dog”, combines with an α head that has the adjective mala “black” in its Spec—see (8.36a). Then a head X is generated over the αP, and nP moves to Spec-XP, as indicated in (8.36b). Next, another αP is generated over XP, and this second αP has the adjective nguna “big” in its Spec—see (8.36c). Another head Y is merged over the higher αP, and XP is raised to the Spec of YP, as shown in (8.36d). Finally, D is merged, and the whole YP is moved to Spec-DP, as in (8.36e). (8.36) a. b. c.

Derivation of (8.34c) [αP mala α [nP hari ]]] (merge X and move nP) → [XP [nP hari ] X [αP mala α nP]] (merge α and AP) → [αP nguna α [XP [nP hari ] X [αP mala α nP]]] (merge Y and move XP) →

d.

[YP [XP [nP hari ] X [αP mala α nP]] Y [αP nguna α XP ]] (merge D and move YP) →

e.

[DP [YP [XP [nP hari ] X [αP mala α nP]] Y [αP nguna α XP ]] D YP]

I now take the agreement marker yi that follows the noun in (8.35c) to be the realisation of the X head. Given the contrast between (8.35a) and (8.35c) I further conclude that yi represents a definiteness feature in addition to the features MASCULINE and SINGULAR. We can now infer that the agreement marker that appears between a possessed noun and a possessor is also a realisation of a functional head with a definiteness feature in addition to number and gender features. The glosses in (8.37) indicate this. (8.37) a.

KOTOKO (Demeke 2002:78,81) hari ya-wa yi mala (de) dog DEF.M.SG-1SG DEF.M.SG black DEF ‘my black dog’

316

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

b.

dar yi Adam gun DEF.M.SG Adam ‘Adam’s big gun’

yi DEF.M.SG

nguna big

(de) DEF

Further, if the syntax of nominal phrases in Kotoko is indeed characterised by roll-up movement, the constituent that moves to the front of the adjective in constructions like those in (8.37) must be one that contains the possessed noun and the possessor but excludes the adjective. Since the possessed noun precedes the possessor inside this constituent, the possessed noun must have moved, and consequently, the constituent in question is probably nP. The agreement marker between possessee and possessor is then a realisation of n, and the syntactic structure of the nP in (8.37b), for example, is as shown below: (8.38)

nP n Num N [M] dar

Num [SG]

NumP n [DEF] [M] [SG] yi

Num Adam

NP N' | N

On my interpretation, the definiteness of n, which spreads all the way up to D, is due to n being the licenser of the possessor, just as I have argued for Scandinavian. That is, the definiteness feature of n is in reality a POSS feature. However, the syntax does not distinguish between POSS features and DEFINITE features, as we have seen. Because of this, the n that licenses a possessor is spelled out in the same way as a corresponding definite X head. A remaining question concerns the spellout of functional heads in definite nominal phrases in Kotoko. If my analysis is correct, n is spelled out only if it licenses a possessor, which means that there is a possessor relation that needs to be made visible. If there are adjectives above nP, so that an X head is also present, X will be spelled out even if n is spelled out. Y is however never spelled out. That is why there is only one yi in (8.35c) although there are two adjectives. I think the notion of (strong) phase plays a role here. Since nP is a (strong) phase, X and n are in different (strong) phases, and because of this, the spelling out of X does not depend whether or not n is spelled out. X and Y, on the other hand, are in the same (strong) phase, and in addition, XP is in the Spec of YP. This is probably the reason why X is spelled out but not Y. Finally, spelling out a definite D is optional if another definiteness marker is present, as we have seen.

SOME CROSSLINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVES

317

8.4.2 Possessors not related to the n head Whereas possessors agree with n in Scandinavian and Kotoko, there are also languages where possessors are arguably not related to n at all. Italian was mentioned in chapter 6, section 6.3.3. Another case in point is North Sami. In addition, North Sami is a representative of the large group of languages where the only overt reflex of the possessor relation is genitive case on the possessor. I will therefore now take a closer look at this language. In North Sami all possessors, pronominal as well as nonpronominal, appear in initial position in the nominal phrases that contain them, and they all have genitive case. The position of North Sami possessors is shown in (8.39). As for the genitive case of the head noun here, it is triggered by the numeral, and it is the numeral that shows the case of the nominal phrase as a whole. (8.39) a.

b.

NORTH SAMI mu guokte 1SG.GEN two.NOM ‘my two red dogs’

ruks-es beatnaga red-ATTR dog.SG.GEN

Bireha guokte ruks-es beatnaga Biret.GEN two.NOM red-ATTR dog.SG.GEN ‘Biret’s two red dogs’

If we compare (8.39) to (8.40) we see that possessors have exactly the same form as nouns or pronouns that combine with postpositions. They all appear in the genitive case. Hence, the language has no specialised possessive pronouns, only genitive forms of ordinary personal pronouns, which have other uses beside appearing as possessors. (8.40) a.

b.

NORTH SAMI Elle boðii mu Elle.NOM came.3SG 1SG.GEN ‘Elle came with me.’

mielde. with

Elle boðii Bireha mielde. Elle.NOM came.3SG Biret.GEN with ‘Elle came with Biret.’

In (8.41) I show that the form of the possessor is not influenced by the case of the possessed nominal phrase as a whole. Irrespective of the case of the possessed nominal, the possessor invariably has genitive case.

318

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

(8.41) a.

NORTH SAMI {Mu/Bireha} bohtal 1SG.GEN/Biret.GEN bottle.SG.NOM ‘My/Biret’s bottle is empty.’

lea is

guoros. empty

b.

Elle válddii {mu/Bireha} bohttala. Elle.NOM took.3SG 1SG.GEN/Biret.GEN bottle.SG.ACC ‘Elle took my/Biret’s bottle.’

c.

Njoara viinni {mu/Bireha} bohttalii! pour.IMP wine.SG.ACC 1SG.GEN/Biret.GEN bottle.SG.ILL ‘Pour (the) wine into my/Biret’s bottle!’

d.

Lea viidni {mu/Bireha} bohttalis. is wine.SG.NOM 1SG.GEN/Biret.GEN bottle.SG.LOC ‘There’s wine in my/Biret’s bottle.’

e.

Anán dán {mu/Bireha} bohtalin. consider.1SG this.SG.ACC 1SG.GEN/Biret.GEN bottle.ESS ‘I consider this my/Biret’s bottle.’

In other words, North Sami does not have pronominal possessors that are licensed simply through agreement, as Scandinavian has. Instead, pronominal possessors in North Sami are case licensed in the same way as nonpronominal possessors. Moreover, the fact that a possessor will precede a numeral, if there is one, suggests that possessors are licensed by Poss. I have proposed earlier that a possessor that is case-licensed by the Poss head will have to move out of nP to be in the same (strong) phase as Poss. Consequently, the possessor raises to Spec-PossP. As for the question of whether the possessor in North Sami moves on to Spec-DP, if it is true that there must be phonologically overt material in the DP projection even in this language, the answer is most likely “yes”. The account I have just given predicts that possessors should not trigger (invisible) definiteness on North Sami possessed nouns. Testing this is however not very easy. For one thing, the language has no overt definiteness markers that can co-occur with possessors. For another, syntactic tests like those I have used for Scandinavian do not work well either. Although the meaning contrast between (8.42a) and (8.42b) seems to imply that the postverbal subject gets an indefinite reading, while the preverbal subject tends to be interpreted as definite, it is not clear that we find a parallel contrast between (8.42c) and (8.42d), where the subject is a possessed noun. Instead of the expected indefinite reading on the part of the subject (“a car of yours”) the word order in (8.42d) is associated with focusing of the possessor, as indicated.

SOME CROSSLINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVES

(8.42) a.

319

NORTH SAMI Biila lea sˇilju-s. car.NOM.SG is yard-LOC.SG ‘The car is in the yard.’

b.

Lea biila sˇilju-s. is car.NOM.SG yard-LOC.SG ‘There is a car in the yard.’

c.

Du biila lea sˇilju-s. your car.NOM.SG is yard-LOC.SG ‘Your car is in the yard.’

d.

Lea du biila sˇilju-s. is your car.NOM.SG yard-LOC.SG ‘YOUR car is in the yard.’

It holds in general that North Sami allows discourse functions to have more influence on word order than what is the case in Germanic, for example. The construction in (8.42d) is therefore not necessarily comparable to the Germanic presentational construction, and we cannot conclude that the postverbal nominal must have an indefinite reading here. On the other hand, we have no evidence that the possessor triggers definiteness either. Hence, in the absence of evidence to the contrary I will maintain that all DP-internal possessors in North Sami are case-licensed by Poss. A last point that should be mentioned here is that although possessors in North Sami do not show any agreement with the possessed noun, the possessed noun can have a possessive suffix that reflects the person and number (but not the case) of the possessor. But unlike the situation in many other languages, possessive suffixes in North Sami behave like anaphors in the syntax. I illustrate this in (8.43). If a possessed noun has a possessive suffix, and there is another nominal phrase that can bind the suffix, such as the subject in (8.43a), the possessor expression itself is optional. An unbound possessive suffix is simply ungrammatical, as (8.43b) demonstrates.5 Hence, if there is no other potential binder, the possessor must be spelled out, as in (8.43c).

5 Possessive suffixes for first and second person can appear without a visible binder when they

are attached to kinship terms, as in the following example (from Nickel 1990:109): (i)

Gos áhcˇcˇá-t lea? where father-2SG is ‘Where is your father?’

320

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

(8.43) a.

NORTH SAMI Moai atti-i-me dáid (munno) beatnag-iidá-me. 1.DU.NOM give-PAST-1DU them 1.DU.GEN dog-PL.ILL-1DU ‘We(DU) gave them to our(DU) dogs.’

b. * Sii liiko-jedje beatnag-iidá-me. 3PL.NOM like-past.3PL dog-PL.ILL-1DU Intended meaning: ‘They(PL) liked our(DU) dogs.’ c.

Sii liiko-jedje munno beatnag-iidda. 3PL.NOM like-past.3PL 1.DU.GEN dog-PL.ILL ‘They(PL) liked our(DU) dogs.’

I will not try to explain here the anaphoric nature of North Sami possessive suffixes. I will only point out that these suffixes can be seen as sets of φ-features that are copied from the possessor onto a head in the functional domain of the possessed noun. The head in question cannot be N itself, since possessive suffixes appear outside case/number markers, which I take to be realisations of Num. It could be n, however, so that the suffixing of the possessive markers is due to movement of N to n.6 If this is correct, n can be visible in North Sami after all, although it is never realised as a definiteness marker. In any case, a striking difference between Scandinavian and North Sami is that while the φfeatures of the possessed noun are copied onto (pronominal) possessors in Scandinavian, in North Sami it is the other way round. That is, in Scandinavian it is possessors that can be endowed with a set of unvalued φ-features which get valued by the features associated with the possessee. But in North Sami, a set of unvalued φ-features can appear in the functional domain of the possessee instead, if a possessor is present to give them their values. 8.5 Concluding remarks I have tried in this chapter to give an idea of the variation that is found in nominal phrases in natural languages, and to indicate how the observed variation can be accounted for within the model of the syntax of nominal phrases that I have developed in the preceding chapters on the basis of Scandinavian. We have seen that in my model there are several aspects of the syntax of nominal phrases that allow for variation. First of all, there can be variation with respect to what is spelled out and what is not. For example, while the definiteness features of both n and D can get a phonological realisation in the ‘double definiteness’ varieties of Scandinavian, other languages, such as North Sami, normally do not make any of these definiteness features visible. Then there are 6 Recall that I suggested in chapter 5 that Armenian possessive suffixes are realisations of n.

SOME CROSSLINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVES

321

languages like Danish and English, where D but not n can be spelled out as a definiteness marker. Other languages—for example Semitic languages—have definiteness markers on DP-internal adjectives as well as on nouns. According to my analysis, the latter pattern is the result of spelling out agreement features inside the extended projection of the adjective. Finally, having definiteness markers inside adjectival projections opens up the possibility that such a marker can serve as the only overt reflex of definiteness in the whole DP, and I argued that this is an option in Albanian. Another source of cross-linguistic variation in the surface form of nominal phrases has to do with movement. While some languages have nominal phrases where the various elements appear in the order that I take to be the base-generated one, in other languages movement operations apply that lead to very different orderings of the elements included in complex nominal phrases. It is interesting to note, though, that the movement of N to Num and n that I have proposed for Scandinavian can apparently be found also in languages that are in every way very distant from Scandinavian. In Kotoko, for example, the suffixing of plural markers and the postnominal position of possessor expressions can be analysed as the result of N-raising to n. It is possible that N headmoves even higher in some languages, for example in Irish. In addition, phrasal movement often plays a part in the derivation of nominal phrases, from simple nP-movement to very complex roll-up movements affecting every projection of the nominal functional domain. Last but not least, the inclusion of a possessor in a nominal phrase can lead to a number of different patterns in the ordering of possessor and possessee and in their morphological marking. In my view, all the variation connected to possessors can be tracked down to the licensing of the possessor and to the agreement relations that may hold between the possessor and elements of the extended projection of the possessee. For one thing, not all possessors are licensed by the same licenser. If the possessor finds a licenser inside nP, either n or a lower element, it can stay it its base position in Spec-NP, but if there is no such licenser, the possessor must move out of the nP phase and establish a relation with Poss, which is situated immediately below D. We saw that these two options can be found side by side in some varieties of Scandinavian, but there are also many languages that employ only one of them. In addition, while some possessor expressions are licensed by virtue of bearing a case relation to some element of the possessed nominal phrase, others are licensed through agreement with n, an agreement which involves a POSS feature, and the consequence is that n and thereby the possessed nominal phrase as a whole is necessarily definite. This was the core of my analysis of Scandinavian possessive pronouns and possessive PPs in chapter 5, but strikingly, we have seen in this chapter that possessed nominal phrases in Kotoko

322

NOMINAL PHRASES FROM A SCANDINAVIAN PERSPECTIVE

have very similar properties. Hence, we have indications that the mechanism I proposed for Scandinavian has relevance elsewhere as well. We have also seen that the possessor relation can get a number of different overt manifestations. One possibility is that the possessor has genitive case. Alternatively, there can be a POSS feature that is spelled out inside the possessor expression, either as an adposition or as an affix on the possessor, or else it can be spelled out on some element in the functional domain of the possessee. Similar options exist for agreement features: the possessor or the possessee can carry them, or there may be no visible agreement at all. There are many other issues concerning possessors that could have been addressed, such as construct state nominals (Ritter 1988, 1991, Duffield 1996, Longobardi 1996, Cinque 2000), but I will leave them aside here. I would however like to point out that in a wider typological perspective, there is a certain correlation between postnominal possessors, prepositions, and VO order on the one hand, and between prenominal possessors, postpositions, and OV order on the other (Greenberg 1963, Dryer 1992). One might propose that what the orders possessor-noun, DP-P, and OV have in common is that a DP has moved overtly to the Spec of the head that licenses it. Recall that on my analysis, the possessor-noun order is the result of the possessor moving to Spec-nP and from there possibly to a higher position. Likewise, DP-P and OV orders can be seen as the result of a DP moving to a Spec position in the functional domain of a P or V. Hence, if a language requires that all DPs move to the Spec of their licensing heads, that language will have possessor-noun and DP-P, and unless the verb moves high up in its own functional domain, it will also have OV. A language where DPs do not move overtly, by contrast, would have Noun Possessor, P DP, and VO. However, the correlations just mentioned are far from perfect, and it is easy to find exceptions. For example, English has prenominal possessors, but also prepositions and VO order, whereas North Sami has prenominal possessors (the only option), many postpositions but also a few prepositions, and VO order. That is, in many languages there is variation in the syntactic behaviour of DPs, such that some DPs—for example, possessor phrases—move overtly to their licensing position, while other DPs—for example, objects of verbs—do not. In addition, there can be considerable variation in the syntax of possessor phrases within one single language, as this work has amply demonstrated. Together, the points of variation I have just mentioned allow for great diversity in the nominal phrases of the world’s languages. Still, the system I am proposing is relatively simple in that all nominal phrases are taken to have the same base-generated structure. That is, when elements are first introduced into the syntactic structure that will end up as a nominal phrase, they are always combined in the same order. NP combines with Num, NumP with n, and so on. The variation lies in the feature makeup of the different elements, in the phonological realisation of their features, and in the movements that may or may not

SOME CROSSLINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVES

323

subsequently apply. To get a full picture, the triggers for movement and the requirements or constraints that determine what is spelled out and what is not will have to be investigated in more detail for individual languages. Although there is thus a lot more work to be done before the syntax of nominal phrases of all sorts have been accounted for, I think the model I have presented in this book could be a useful tool.

REFERENCES

Abbott, Barbara. 1999. “Support for a unique theory of definiteness.” In Proceedings from SALT IX, Tanya Matthews and Devon Strolovitch (eds), 1– 15. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Abney, Steven Paul. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in Its Sentential Aspect. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Adger, David. 2003. Core Syntax. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Adger, David and Ramchand, Gillian. 2003. “Predication and equation.” Linguistic Inquiry 34: 325–359. Åfarli, Tor A. 1995. “A unified analysis of relative clause formation in Old Norse.” In Papers from the XVth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, Inger Moen, Hanne Gram Simonsen and Helge Lødrup (eds), 533–543. Oslo: Department of Linguistics, University of Oslo. Alexiadou, Artemis. 2001. Functional Structure in Nominals. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Alexiadou, Artemis. 2003. “Some notes on the structure of alienable and inalienable possessors.” In From NP to DP,vol.2, Martine Coene and Yves D’hulst (eds), 167–188. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Alexiadou, Artemis. 2005. “Possessors and (in)definiteness.” Lingua 115: 787– 819. Alexiadou, Artemis and Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1999. “Raising without infinitives and the nature of agreement.” In Proceedings of WCCFL 18, Sonya Bird, Andrew Carnie, Jason D. Haugen and Peter Norquest (eds), 14–26. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function changing. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Baker, Mark C. 2003. Lexical Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baltin, Mark and Postal, Paul M. 1996. “More on reanalysis hypotheses.” Linguistic Inquiry 27: 127–145. Barwise, Jon and Cooper, Robin. 1981. “Generalized quantifiers and natural language.” Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 159–219. Bernstein, Judy B. 2001. “Focusing the “right” way in Romance determiner phrases.” Probus 13: 1–29. Bianchi, Valentina. 1999. Consequences of Antisymmetry: Headed Relative Clauses. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

326

REFERENCES

Boas, Franz. 1911. “Kwakiutl.” In Handbook of American Indian Languages, vol. 1, Franz Boas (ed), 423–557. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology. (Reprinted 1969 by Anthropological Publications, Oosterhout.) Bonneau, José, Pica, Pierre and Nakajima, Takashi. 1999. “A restrictive/nonrestrictive distinction in possessive nominals.” In Proceedings of WCCFL 17, Kimary Shahin, Susan Blake and Eun-Sook Kim (eds), 88–101. Stanford, CA: CSLI. Borer, Hagit. 1989. “On the morphological parallelism between compounds and constructs.” Yearbook of Morphology 1: 45–65. Börjars, Kersti. 1998. Feature Distribution in Swedish Noun Phrases. Oxford: Blackwell. Borthen, Kaia. 2003. Norwegian Bare Singulars. Doctoral dissertation, NTNU. Bowers, John. 1988. “Extended X-bar theory, the ECP and the left branching condition”. In Proceedings of WCCFL 7, Hagit Borer (ed), 46–62. Stanford, CA: CSLI. Bowers, John. 1993a. “The syntax and semantics of nominals.” Proceedings of SALT 3: 1–30. Bowers, John. 1993b. “The syntax of predication.” Linguistic Inquiry 24: 591– 656. Brugè, Laura. 1994. “Alcune considerazioni sulla sintassi del demonstrativo in spagnolo.” Ms., University of Padua and University of Venice. Buchholz, Oda and Fiedler, Wilfried. 1987. Albanische Grammatik. Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie. Cardinaletti, Anna. 1998. “On the deficient/strong opposition in possessive systems.” In Possessors, Predicates, and Movement in the Determiner Phrase, Artemis Alexiadou and Chris Wilder (eds), 17–53. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Cardinaletti, Anna and Starke, Michal. 1995. “Deficient pronouns: A view from Germanic.” In Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax 2, Höskuldur Thráinsson, Samuel David Epstein and Steve Peter (eds), 21–65. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Carlson, Gregory N. 1977. “A unified analysis of the English bare plural.” Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 413–456. Carstens, Vicki. 2000. “Concord in minimalist theory.” Linguistic Inquiry 31: 319–355. Carstens, Vicki. 2001. “Multiple agreement and Case deletion: Against ϕ– incompleteness.” Syntax 4: 147–163. Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen and Sybesma, Rint. 1999. “Bare and not so bare nouns and the structure of NP.” Linguistic Inquiry 30: 509–542. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

REFERENCES

327

Chomsky, Noam. 1998. Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. [MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 15.] Cambridge, MA: MIT. (Reprinted 2000 in Step by step: Essays in minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, Robert Martin, David Michaels and Juan Uriagereka (eds), 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.) Chomsky, Noam. 1999. Derivation by Phase. [MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18.] Cambridge, MA: MIT. (Reprinted 2001 in Ken Hale: A life in language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed), 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.) Chomsky, Noam. 2001. “Beyond explanatory adequacy.” Ms., MIT. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1994. “On the evidence for partial N-movement in the Romance DP.” In Paths towards Universal Grammar, Guglielmo Cinque, Jan Koster, Jean-Yves Pollock, Luigi Rizzi and Raffaella Zanuttini (eds), 85–110. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1996. “The ‘antisymmetric’ programme: Theoretical and typological implications.” Journal of Linguistics 32: 447–464. Cinque, G. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Cinque, Guglielmo. 2000. “On Greenberg’s Universal 20 and the Semitic DP.” University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics, 10 (2): 45–61. Cinque, Guglielmo. 2003. “The dual source of adjectives and XP- vs. N-raising in the Romance DP.” Talk given at the CASTL Kick-Off Conference, University of Tromsø. Clark, Herbert H. 1977. “Bridging.” In Thinking: Readings in Cognitive Science, P. N. Johnson-Laird and P. C. Wason (eds), 411–420. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cornilescu, Alexandra. 1995. “Rumanian genitive constructions.” In Advances in Roumanian Linguistics, Guglielmo Cinque and Giuliana Giusti (eds), 1– 54. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Corver, Norbert. 1997. “The internal syntax of the Dutch extended adjectival projection.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15: 289–368. Déchaine, Rose-Marie and Wiltschko, Martina. 2002. “Decomposing prononouns.” Linguistic Inquiry 33: 409–442. Delfitto, Denis and Schroten, Jan. 1991. “Bare plurals and the number affix in DP.” Probus 3: 155–185. Delsing, L.-O. 1991. “Om genitivens utveckling i fornsvenskan.” In Studier i svensk språkhistoria 2, Sven-Göran Malmgren and Bo Ralph (eds), 12–30. Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. Delsing, Lars-Olof. 1993. The Internal Structure of Noun Phrases in the Scandinavian Languages. Doctoral dissertation, Lund University. Delsing, Lars-Olof. 1998. “Possession in Germanic.” In Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase, Artemis Alexiadou and Chris Wilder (eds), 87–108. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

328

REFERENCES

Delsing, Lars-Olof. 2003a. “Perifrastisk genitiv.” In Dialektsyntaktiska studier av den nordiska nominalfrasen, Øystein Alexander Vangsnes, Anders Holmberg and Lars-Olof Delsing (eds), 65–84. Oslo: Novus. Delsing, Lars-Olof. 2003b. “Syntaktisk variation i skandinaviska nominalfraser.” In Dialektsyntaktiska studier av den nordiska nominalfrasen, Øystein Alexander Vangsnes, Anders Holmberg and Lars-Olof Delsing (eds), 11–64. Oslo: Novus. Delsing, Lars-Olof and Egerland, Verner. 2002. “Kinship nouns in possessive constructions in Italian and Scandinavian.” Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 55: 103–120. Demeke, Girma A. 2002. “The syntax of DPs.” In Some Aspects of the Grammar of Zina Kotoko, Bodil Kappel Schmidt, David Odden and Anders Holmberg (eds), 72–105. Munich: Lincom Europa. Dimitrova-Vulchanova, Mila. 2003. “Modification in the Balkan nominal expression.” In From NP to DP, vol. 1, Martine Coene and Yves D’hulst (eds), 91–118. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Dimitrova-Vulchanova, Mila and Giusti, Giuliana. 1998. “Fragments of Balkan nominal structure.” In Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase, Artemis Alexiadou and Chris Wilder (eds), 333–360. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Dixon, R. M. W. 1982. Where Have All The Adjectives Gone? and Other Essays in Semantics and Syntax. Berlin: Mouton. Donaldson, Bruce C. 1993. A Grammar of Afrikaans. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Doron, Edit. 1988. “The semantics of predicate nominals.” Linguistics 26: 281–301. Drijkoningen, Frank. 1994. “Affixation and Logical Form.” In Linguistics in the Netherlands 1994, Reineke Bok-Bennema and Crit Cremers (eds), 25– 36. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Dryer, Matthew S. 1992. “The Greenbergian word order correlations.” Language 68: 81–138. Duffield, Nigel. 1996. “On structural invariance and lexical diversity in VSO languages: Arguments from Irish noun phrases.” In The syntax of the Celtic Languages, Robert D. Borsley and Ian Roberts (eds), 314–340. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Eide, Kristin M. and Åfarli, Tor A. 1999. “The syntactic disguises of the predication operator.” Studia Linguistica 53: 155–181. Eide, Kristin M. and Åfarli, Tor A. 2001. “Semi-lexical heads in semantically charged syntax.” In Semi-lexical Categories, Norbert Corver and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 455–473. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Embick, David and Noyer, Rolf. 2001. “Movement operations after syntax.” Linguistic Inquiry 32: 555–595. Enç, Mürvet. 1991. “The semantics of specificity.” Linguistic Inquiry 22: 1–25.

REFERENCES

329

Faarlund, Jan Terje. 1998. “Grammatikkbiten — de eller dem?” Språknytt 1998: 1. Faarlund, Jan Terje. 2004. The Syntax of Old Norse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Faarlund, Jan Terje, Lie, Svein and Vannebo, Kjell Ivar. 1997. Norsk referansegrammatikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Fanselow, Gisbert. 1986. “On the sentential nature of prenominal adjectives in German.” Folia Linguistica 20: 341–380. Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader. 1998. “Layers in the distribution of Arabic adverbs and adjectives and their licensing.” In Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XI, Elabbas Benmamoun, Mushira Eid and Niloofar Haeri (eds), 9–46. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader. 1999. “Arabic modifying adjectives and DP structures.” Studia Linguistica 53: 105–154. Fiva, Toril. 1987. Possessor Chains in Norwegian. Oslo: Novus. Fodor, Janet D. 1970. The Linguistic Description of Opaque Contexts. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Franks, Steven and Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2003. “Functonal categories in the nominal domain.” Proceedings of FASL 12. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications. Fukui, Naoki. 1986. A Theory of Category Projection and its Applications. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Giusti, Giuliana. 1991. “The categorial status of quantified nominals.” Linguistische Berichte 136: 438–452. Giusti, Giuliana. 1994. “Enclitic articles and double definiteness: A comparative analysis of nominal structure in Romance and Germanic.” The Linguistic Review 11: 241–255. Giusti, Giuliana. 1995. “Heads and modifiers among determiners: Evidence from Rumanian.” In Advances in Roumanian Linguistics, Guglielmo Cinque and Giuliana Giusti (eds), 103–125. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Giusti, Giuliana. 1997. “The categorial status of determiners.” In The New Comparative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman, ed., 95–123. London: Longman. Giusti, Giuliana. 2002. “The functional structure of noun phrases: A bare phrase structure approach.” In Functional Structure in DP and IP, Guglielmo Cinque (ed), 54–90. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. “Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements.” In Universals of Grammar, Joseph H. Greenberg (ed), 73–113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Grohmann, Kleanthes K. 2000. “Towards a syntactic understanding of prosodically reduced pronouns.” Theoretical Linguistics 26: 175–210. Grohmann, Kleanthes K. 2003. Prolific Domains. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

330

REFERENCES

Grohmann, Kleanthes K. and Haegeman, Liliane. 2003. “Resuming reflexives.” Nordlyd 31 (1), 46–62. Gutiérrez-Rexach, Javier. 2003. “Quantification and derivation in relative clauses.” Talk given at the 13th Colloquium of Generative Grammar, Universidad Castilla-La Mancha. Haegeman, Liliane. 2003. “The external possessor construction in West Flemish.” In From NP to DP, vol. 2, Martine Coene and Yves D’hulst (eds), 221–256. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Halle, Morris. 1997. “Distributed Morphology: Impoverishment and fission.” MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 30: 425–449. Halle, Morris and Marantz, Alec. 1993. “Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection.” In The View from Building 20, Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds), 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Halle, Morris and Marantz, Alec. 1994. “Some key features of Distributed Morphology.” MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21: 275–288. Halmøy, Madeleine. 2001. en Fra eller Til. Bestemmelse av nominale predikat. Master’s thesis, NTNU. Hamel, Patricia J. 1994. A Grammar and Lexicon of Loniu, Papua New Guinea. Canberra: Department of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University. Hankamer, Jorge and Mikkelsen, Line. 2002. “A morphological analysis of definite nouns in Danish.” Journal of Germanic Linguistics 14: 137–175. Hankamer, Jorge and Mikkelsen, Line. 2003. “When movement must be blocked: A reply to Embick and Noyer.” Ms., UCSC. Harley, Heidi and Ritter, Elizabeth. 2002. “Person and number in pronouns: a feature-geometric analysis.” Language 78: 482–526. Haugseth, Susan Christine. 1983. The Development of the s-genitive and “genitive” Periphrasis in Norwegian. Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. Hellan, Lars. 1988. Anaphora in Norwegian and the Theory of Grammar. Dordrecht, Foris. Hellan, Lars and Platzack, Christer. 1995. “Pronouns in Scandinavian languages: An overview.” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 56: 47–69. Heycock, Caroline and Kroch, Anthony. 1998. “Inversion and equation in copular sentences.” In Papers in Linguistics, vol. 10, Artemis Alexiadou, Nanna Fuhrhop, Ursula Kleinhenz and Paul Law (eds), 71–87. Berlin: ZAS. Heycock, Caroline and Zamparelli, Roberto. 2000. “Friends and colleagues: Plurality and NP-coordination.” Proceedings of NELS, 30: 341–352. Heycock, Caroline and Zamparelli, Roberto. 2003. “Coordinated bare definites.” Linguistic Inquiry 34: 443–469. Hoekstra, Teun. 1999. “Parallels between nominal and verbal projections.” In Specifiers: Minimalist Approaches, David Adger, Susan Pintzuk, Bernadette

REFERENCES

331

Plunkett and George Tsoulas (eds), 163–187. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Holmberg, Anders. 1991. “The distribution of Scandinavian weak pronouns.” In Clitics and Their Hosts, Henk van Riemsdijk and Luigi Rizzi (eds), 155– 174. Tilburg: EUROTYPE Working Papers. Holmberg, Anders. 1993. “On the structure of predicate NP.” Studia Linguistica, 47: 126–138. Holmberg, Anders. 1994. “Morphological parameters in syntax: The case of Faroese.” Umeå: Department of General Linguistics, University of Umeå, Report 35: 21–62. Holmberg, Anders and Sandström, Görel. 1996a. “Scandinavian possessive constructions from a Northern Swedish viewpoint.” In Microparametric Syntax and Dialect Variation, James R. Black and Virginia Motapanyane (eds), 95–120. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Holmberg, Anders and Sandström, Görel. 1996b. “Vad är det för särskilt med nordsvenska nominalfraser?” Nordica Bergensia 9: 75–89. Hovdhaugen, Even, Hoëm, Ingjerd, Iosefo, Consulata Mahina and Vonen, Arnfinn Muruvik. 1989. A Handbook of the Tokelau Language. Oslo: Norwegian University Press. Hudson, Wesley. 1989. “Functional categories and the saturation of noun phrases.” Proceedings of NELS 19: 207–222. Iversen, Ragnvald. 1918. Syntaksen i Tromsø bymaal: En kort oversigt. Kristiania [Oslo]: Bymaalslagets Forlag. Jackendoff, Ray. 1968. “Possessives in English.” In Studies in Transformational Grammar and Related Topics, Stephen R. Anderson, Ray Jackendoff and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds), 25–51. Waltham, MA: Department of English, Brandeis University. Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of Language. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Jenstad, Tor Erik. 1985. Sunndalsmålet: Eit grensemål på indre Nordmøre. Oslo: Novus. Johannessen, Janne Bondi. 1998. Coordination. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Josefsson, Gunlög. 1999. “On the semantics and syntax of Scandinavian pronouns and object shift.” In Clitics in the Languages of Europe, Henk van Riemsdijk (ed), 731–757. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter. Josefsson, Gunlög. To appear. “Semantic and grammatical gender in Swedish—independent but interacting dimensions.” Lingua. Julien, Marit. 2002a. “Determiners and word order in Scandinavian nominal phrases.” Studia Linguistica 56: 264–314. Julien, Marit. 2002b. Syntactic Heads and Word Formation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

332

REFERENCES

Julien, Marit. 2003. “‘Et tilbud til de med briller’ — litt om de og dem i norsk.” Norsklæraren 2003 (1): 21–25. Julien, Marit. To appear. “Roots and verbs in North Saami.” In Sami Linguistics, Diane Nelson, Ida Toivonen and Bill Palmer (eds). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Kallulli, Dalina. 1999. The Comparative Syntax of Albanian: On the Contribution of Syntactic Types to Propositional Interpretation. Doctoral dissertation, University of Durham. Kayne, Richard S. 1993. “Toward a modular theory of auxiliary selection.” Studia Linguistica 47: 3-31. Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kayne, Richard S. 2000. “Here and There.” Ms., New York University. Kayne, Richard S. 2001. “Prepositions as probes.” Ms., New York University. Kayne, Richard S. 2002. “On some prepositions that look DP-internal: English of and French de.” Catalan Journal of Linguistics 2002 (1): 71–115. Kester, Ellen-Petra. 1993. “The inflectional properties of Scandinavian adjectives.” Studia Linguistica 47: 139–153. Kester, Ellen-Petra. 1996. The Nature of Adjectival Inflection. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University. Koopman, Hilda and Szabolcsi, Anna. 2000. Verbal Complexes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2003a. “Possessive noun phrases in the languages of Europe.” In Noun Phrase Structure in the Languages of Europe, Frans Plank (ed), 621–722. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2003b. “A woman of sin, a man of duty, and a hell of a mess: Non-determiner genitives in Swedish.” In Noun Phrase Structure in the Languages of Europe, Frans Plank, ed., 515–558. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Krause, Cornelia. 1999. “Two notes on prenominal possessors in German.” MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 33: 191–217. Levander, Lars. 1909. Älvdalsmålet i Dalarna: Ordbøjning och syntax. Stockholm: Norstedt. Levin, Beth. 1993. On the Nature of Ergativity. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Lewis, David. 1979. “Scorekeeping in a language game.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 8: 339–359. Löbel, Elisabeth. 1989. “Q as a functional category.” In Syntactic Phrase Structure Phenomena in Noun Phrases and Sentences, Christa Bhatt, Elisabeth Löbel and Claudia Schmidt (eds), 133–158. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Lockwood, William B. 1977. An Introduction to Modern Faroese. Tórshavn: Føroya Skúlabókagrunnur.

REFERENCES

333

Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1994. “Reference and proper names: A theory of Nmovement in syntax and Logical Form.” Linguistic Inquiry 25: 609–665. Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1996. “The syntax of N-raising: A minimalist theory.” Ms., University of Trieste. Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2001. “How comparative is semantics? A unified parametric theory of bare nouns and proper names.” Natural Language Semantics 9: 335–369. Lundeby, Einar. 1981. “Syntagmetypen “yngste sønnen”, “svarte natta”.” Maal og Minne 1981: 61–71. Lyons, Christopher. 1986. “The syntax of English genitive constructions.” Journal of Linguistics 22: 123–143. Lyons, Christopher. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mandelbaum, Deborah. 1994. Syntactic Conditions on Saturation. Doctoral disssertation, CUNY. Manninen, Satu. 2003. “To raise or not to raise: the case of Finnish restrictive relative clauses.” Nordlyd 31 (4): 668–693. Marantz, Alec. 1997. “No escape from syntax.” University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4 (2): 201–225. Marantz, Alec. 2001. “Words.” Talk given at the West Coast Conference of Formal Linguistics 20, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, February 2001. Matthews, Stephen and Yip, Virginia. 1994. Cantonese: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge. Munn, Alan. 1993. Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Coordinate Structures. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland. Neeleman, Ad. 1997. “PP complements.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15: 89–137. Nickel, Klaus Peter. 1990. Samisk grammatikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Nielsen, Bent Jul. 1964. “Possessivpronomener i jysk.” In Dialektstudier, Poul Andersen (ed), 147–170. Copenhagen: J. H. Schulz. Nielsen, Bent Jul. 1986. “Om pronominet sin i jysk.” Danske Folkemål 28: 41– 101. Nilsen, Øystein. 2003. Eliminating Positions. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University. Nygaard, Marius. 1905. Norrøn syntax. Kristiania [Oslo]: Aschehoug. The Oslo Corpus of Tagged Norwegian Texts. http://www.hf.uio.no/tekstlab/ Partee, Barbara H. 1987. “Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles.” In Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers, Jeroen Groenendijk, Dick de Jongh and Martin Stokhof (eds), 115–143. Dordrecht, Foris.

334

REFERENCES

Payne, John. 1994. “Nouns and noun phrases.” In The Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics, vol. 5, Ron E. Asher and J. M. Y. Simpson (eds), 2848–2855. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2001. On the Nature of Intra-clausal Relations. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University. Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2002. “Determiner Phrase in languages with and without determiners.” Poster presented at the Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics 19: University of Tromsø, January 2002. Picallo, M. Carme. 2002. “Abstract agreement and clausal arguments.” Syntax 5: 116–147. Platzack, Christer. 1982. “Transitive adjectives in Swedish: A phenomenon with implications for the theory of abstract case.” The Linguistic Review 2: 39–56. Platzack, Christer. 2000. “A Complement-of-N° account of restrictive and nonrestrictive relatives: The case of Swedish.” In The Syntax of Relative Clauses, Artemis Alexiadou, Paul Law, André Meinunger and Chris Wilder (eds), 265–308. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Puskas, Genoveva. 2003. “On the syntax and semantics of contrastive topics.” Guest lecture, Lund University, 6 November 2003. Reinhammar, Maj. 1973. Om dativ i svenska och norska dialekter. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell. Reinhart, Tanya and Reuland, Eric. 1993. “Reflexivity.” Linguistic Inquiry, 24: 657–720. Riemsdijk, Henk van and Williams, Edwin. 1986. Introduction to the Theory of Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Rijkhoff, Jan. 2002. The Noun Phrase. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ringgaard, K. 1971. Danske dialekter. Aarhus: Akademisk Boghandel. Ritter, Elizabeth. 1988. “A head-movement approach to construct-state noun phrases.” Linguistics 26: 909–929. Ritter, Elizabeth. 1991. “Two functional categories in noun phrases: Evidence from Modern Hebrew.” In Perspectives on Phrase Structure: Heads and Licensing, Susan D. Rothstein, ed., 37–62. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Ritter, Elizabeth. 1993. “Where’s gender?” Linguistic Inquiry 24: 795–803. Roberts, Craige. 2003. “Uniqueness in definite noun phrases.” Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 287–350. Roberts, Ian and Roussou, Anna. 1999a. “A formal approach to “grammaticalization”.” Linguistics 37: 1011–1041. Roberts, Ian and Roussou, Anna. 1999b. “Interface interpretation.” Ms., University of Stuttgart and University of Cyprus. Sadler, Louisa and Arnold, Douglas J. 1994. “Prenominal adjectives and the phrasal/lexical distinction.” Journal of Linguistics 30: 187–226.

REFERENCES

335

Sandström, Görel and Holmberg, Anders. 1994. “Adjective Incorporation and the syntax of the Scandinavian noun phrase.” Department of General Linguistics, University of Umeå, Report 35: 81–97. Santelmann, Lynn. 1993. “The distribution of double determiners in Swedish: Den support in D.” Studia Linguistica 47: 154–176. Schmitt, Cristina. 2000. “Some consequences of the complement analysis for relative clauses, demonstratives, and the wrong adjectives.” In The Syntax of Relative Clauses, Artemis Alexiadou, Paul Law, André Meinunger and Chris Wilder (eds), 309–348. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Schoorlemmer, Maaike. 1998. “Possessors, articles and definiteness.” In Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase, Artemis Alexiadou and Chris Wilder (eds), 55–86. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Scott, Gary-John. 2002. “Stacked adjectival modification and the structure of nominal phrases.” In Functional Structure in DP and IP, Guglielmo Cinque (ed), 91–120. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Selkirk, Elisabeth and Shen, Tong. 1990. “Prosodic domains in Shanghai Chinese.” In The Phonology-Syntax Connection, Sharon Inkelas and Draga Zec (eds), 313–337. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Sichel, Ivy. 2002. “Phrasal movement in Hebrew adjectives and possessives.” In Dimensions of Movement, Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou, Sjef Barbiers and Hans-Martin Gaertner (eds), 297–339. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1993. “The structure of the Icelandic NP.” Studia Linguistica 47: 177–197. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2004. “Agree and Agreement: Evidence from Germanic.” In Focus on Germanic Typology, Werner Abraham (ed), 59–99. Berlin: Akademieverlag. Sohn, Ho-Min. 1999. The Korean Language.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stroh-Wollin, Ulla. 2003. “Double definiteness in Swedish noun phrases.” In Grammatik i Fokus/Grammar in Focus, vol. 2, Lars-Olof Delsing, Cecilia Falk, Gunlög Josefsson and Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson, (eds), 335–342. Lund: Department of Nordic Languages, Lund University. Svenonius, Peter. 1994. “The structural location of the attributive adjective.” In Proceedings of WCCFL 12, Eric Duncan, Donka Farkas and Philip Spaelti (eds), 439–454. Stanford, CA: CSLI. Svenonius, Peter. 2000. “Impersonal passives: A phase-based analysis.” In Proceedings of the 18th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, vol. 2, Arthur Holmer, Jan-Olof Svantesson and Åke Viberg (eds), 109–125. Lund: Linguistics Department, Lund University. Svenonius, Peter. 2001. “On object shift, scrambling, and the PIC.” MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 39: 267–289.

336

REFERENCES

Svensson, Jan. 2003. “Den där Christer: Om pronominella bestämningar till egennamn.” In Grammatik i Fokus/Grammar in Focus, vol. 1, Lars-Olof Delsing, Cecilia Falk, Gunlög Josefsson and Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson (eds), 203–209. Lund: Department of Nordic Languages, Lund University. Taraldsen, Knut Tarald. 1990. “D-projections and N-projections in Norwegian.” In Grammar in Progress, Joan Mascaró and Marina Nespor (eds), 419–431. Dordrecht: Foris. Taraldsen, Knut Tarald. 1992. “Second thoughts on der.” In Structure de la phrase et theorie du liage, Hans Georg Obenauer and Anne Zribi-Hertz (eds), 217–249. Saint-Denis: PU de Vincennes. Taylor, Charles. 1985. Nkore-Kiga. London: Croom Helm. Testelec, Yakov G. 1998. “Word order variation in some SOV languages of Europe.” In Constituent Order in the Languges of Europe, Anna Siewierska (ed), 649–679. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Torp, Arne. 1973. “Om genitivomskrivinger og –s-genitiv i norsk.” Maal og Minne 1973: 124–150. Torp, Arne. 1992. “Der sogennante “Garpegenitiv”—Ursprung, Alter und Verbreitung im heutigen Norwegisch.” In Niederdeutsch in Skandinavien 3, Lennart Elmevik and Kurt Erik Schöndorf (eds), 151–166. Berlin, Erich Scmidt Verlag. Vangsnes, Øystein Alexander. 1994. “Definiteness and the ‘intensive’ use of pronominal determiners in Norwegian.” ConSole 1: 317–333. Vangsnes, Øystein Alexander. 1999. The Identification of Functional Architecture. Doctoral dissertation, University of Bergen. Vangsnes, Øystein Alexander. 2001a. “On noun phrase architecture, referentiality, and article systems.” Studia Linguistica 55: 249–299. Vangsnes, Øystein Alexander. 2001b. “Passing by numbers.” Talk given at CGSW 16, McGill University. Vannebo, Kjell Ivar. 1972. “Ein sterk ein prylert.” Maal og Minne 1972, 160– 173. Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1974. French Relative Clauses. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1985. Dépendances et niveaux de répresentation en syntax. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Vergnaud, Jean-Roger and Zubizarreta, María Luisa. 1992. “The definite determiner and the inalienable constructions in French and English.” Linguistic Inquiry 23: 595–652. Vikner, Carl and Jensen, Per Anker. 2002. “A semantic analysis of the English genitive. Interaction of lexical and formal semantics.” Studia Linguistica 56: 191–226. Vikner, Sten. 1991. “Relative der and other C0 elements in Danish.” Lingua 84: 109–136.

REFERENCES

337

Williams, Edwin. 1983. “Semantic vs. syntactic categories.” Linguistics and Philosophy 6: 423–446. Woisetschlaeger, Erich. 1983. “On the question of definiteness in ‘An old man’s book’.” Linguistic Inquiry 14: 137–154. Wouden, Ton van der 1996. “Litotes and downward monotonicity.” In Negation: a Notion in Focus, Heinrich Wansing (ed), 145–167. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Yadroff, Mihaelc and Franks, Steven. 2001. “The origin of prepositions.” In Current Issues in Formal Slavic Linguistics, Gerhild Zybatow, Uwe Junghanns, Grit Mehlhorn and Luka Szucsich (eds), 69–79. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Zamparelli, Roberto. 1998. “A theory of kinds, partitives and of/z possessives.” In Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner phrase, Artemis Alexiadou and Chris Wilder (eds), 259–301. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Zamparelli, Roberto. 2000. Layers in the Determiner Phrase. New York, NY: Garland. Zwicky, Arnold M. 1977. On Clitics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.

LANGUAGE INDEX

Note that I do not include here any references to pages where I illustrate a general point with Norwegian or Swedish examples. For Norwegian and Swedish I only refer to those places in the text where I make a specific claim about one of these varieties, or both, or discuss specific dialects or subvarieties.

A. Afrikaans 117, 221 Albanian 300 ff, 321 Älvdalen Swedish 158 Arabic 310 f Armenian 146 f, 320 Åsane Norwegian 221 B. Balkan Sprachbund 159 Bantu 147 f Basque 184 Bergen Norwegian 175, 204 Bokmål Norwegian 1, 37 f, 68, 74, 78, 120 ff, 188f, 198, 223 Bulgarian 300 C. Cantonese 305 Catalan 203 Colloquial Danish 123, 207, 214, 233, 237, 249 Colloquial Faroese 140, 163 Colloquial Icelandic 123 Colloquial Norwegian 37, 116 ff, 123, 221 f, 226, 232, 235 f Colloquial Swedish 116 ff, 267 f D. Danish 6, 24, 27, 65 ff, 70, 76, 79 f, 88, 93, 96 ff, 108 f, 113 f, 118 ff, 124 f, 130, 133, 165, 191, 197 f,

201, 211 f, 213, 222 f, 225, 229 ff, 249, 267, 304 f, 321 see also Colloquial Danish, Jutland Danish, West Jutlandic Dutch 152, 182, 184, 209, 223, 247 E. Early Modern English 222 English 7 f, 15, 20, 41 f, 84, 86, 89, 91, 103 f, 107, 139, 151 f, 179, 183 ff, 206, 223, 225 f, 247 ff, 251, 253, 272, 274 f, 286 ff, 298 f, 309, 312, 321 f F. Faroese 6, 18, 23 f, 26 f, 30 f, 45, 75, 77 ff, 84, 96, 108, 112 f, 118 f, 130, 136 f, 139 ff, 143, 148 f, 159, 164 f, 174, 189, 195, 197, 199, 227, 249, 266 f, 298, 304 see also Colloquial Faroese, Literary Faroese Finland Swedish 111, 233 f Finnish 97 Fosen Norwegian 19 French 106, 247 G. Georgian 305 f German 16, 158, 201, 206, 209, 222 ff, 247 Germanic 15 ff, 166, 175, 177, 206 f, 211, 319

LANGUAGE INDEX

Greek 190 H. Hebrew 299 f, 310 Hungarian 158, 305 I. Icelandic 4 ff, 15 ff, 22 f, 24, 27, 45, 54 ff, 69, 73, 75 f, 84 f, 114 f, 118, 125, 130 f, 134 ff, 139 ff, 148 f, 154, 156 ff, 166, 169, 173 f, 185 f, 188 ff, 195, 197, 203, 205, 214, 227 ff, 248 f, 266 f, 297 f, 303 f see also Colloquial Icelandic, Literary Icelandic Irish 68, 111, 309 Italian 14 f, 17, 49 f, 203, 206, 210 f, 275 f, 312, 317 J. Jutland Danish 149 ff, 180, 198, 223 see also West Jutlandic K. Kwakw’ala 10 Korean 305 f Kotoko 313 ff, 321 L. Lappträsk Swedish 111, 212 f, 234 Literary Faroese 149, 156, 163 Literary Icelandic 57 Loniu 308 M. Mainland Scandinavian 13, 16, 30, 45, 89, 136 f, 149, 157 f, 161, 163, 177, 195, 227, 233, 240 Middle English 223 Middle Low German 223

339

N. Nama 308 Närpes Swedish 62 f Nkore-Kiga 308 Northern Norwegian 176 f, 216 Northern Swedish 9, 18 f, 58 ff, 76, 110 ff, 141 f, 155, 158, 163, 192, 195, 233, 236, 304, 306 North Sami 105, 299, 317 ff, 322 Norwegian 3, 6, 7, 9, 19 f, 26 f, 31, 36 f, 42, 46 ff, 75, 77 ff, 84, 108 f, 112 ff, 118 ff, 124 ff, 128 ff, 133, 140 ff, 164 f, 169 f, 190 ff, 194, 198, 214 ff, 220 ff, 225 ff, 230 ff, 235 ff, 249, 264, 266 f, 279, 282, 285 ff, 298, 302, 304 see also Åsane Norwegian, Bergen Norwegian, Bokmål Norwegian, Colloquial Norwegian, Fosen Norwegian, Northern Norwegian, Nynorsk Norwegian, Oslo Norwegian, Solør Norwegian, Sunndal Norwegian, Tromsø Norwegian, Trøndelag Norwegian Nynorsk Norwegian 1, 3 f, 37, 78, 121, 165, 232 O. Old French 222 Old Norse 105 f, 149, 306 Old Swedish 306 Oslo Norwegian 141 Ossetic 222 Österbotten Swedish 62 f R. Romance 14, 16 f, 203, 311 Rumanian 300 S. Semitic 299, 311 f, 321 Skellefteå Swedish 202 f

340

LANGUAGE INDEX

Solør Norwegian 19, 124, 149, 154, 170 ff, 174 ff, 178 ff, 186, 203 f, 219 f Spanish 103 f, 110, 112, 203 Sunndal Norwegian 19 Swahili 147 f Swedish 6, 18, 20, 24, 27, 37 ff, 64, 77 ff, 82, 84, 108 f, 112 f, 118 ff, 124, 126, 128, 130, 133, 140, 143, 158, 174, 195, 197 f, 201, 210, 212, 225 f, 231, 237, 249, 264, 266 ff, 298, 304 see also Älvdalen Swedish, Colloquial Swedish, Finland Swedish, Gotland Swedish, Lappträsk Swedish, Närpes Swedish,

Northern Swedish, Österbotten Swedish, Skellefteå Swedish T. Tokelauan 306 Tromsø Norwegian 19, 120 ff Trøndelag Norwegian 19, 64, 176 Turkish 5 V. Västerbotten Swedish 176, 192, 196 W. West Flemish 247 West Jutlandic 65 f, 76, 198, 222

SUBJECT INDEX

A. α heads 9 f, 12, 305 αP 21, 37, 89, 132, 264, 275, 313 movement of 55 f, 58 ff, 75 f, 89, 114 f, 135, 137, 154, 298, 304, 306 Abstract construction 74 Accommodation 33, 134 Adjectival inflection 27, 45 ff, 62 f, 74, 219, 240, 247, 299, 301 see also Strong Inflection, Weak inflection Adjective incorporation 61 ff Adjectives 6 ff, 13 f, 24, 31 f, 113, 154, 169, 212, 218 f, 240, 306, 310, 312 as predicates 45 f, 272 f, 302 in nominal predicates 256, 288 f in relative clause constructions 94 f modifiers of 48, 50 ff, 63 of nationality 70 postnominal 7, 45 with arguments 6 f, 53 f with pronouns 127 f with pseudopossessors 238 f, 244, 246 without overt nouns 64, 70, 74, 95 Adjectival phrases 7 ff, 75, 303 internal syntax of 47 ff Agentive relation 138 Agreement and structural case 148, 163

between BSN and predicate 264 f between correlate and relative operator 102 ff between n and D 12, 18, 29, 44, 195, 282 between n and focused possessor 205 between n and nonpronominal possessor 219, 315 between n and possessive P 146, 147 f between n and prenominal possessor 201, 219, 249 between n and pronominal possessor 162 f, 173, 201 ff, 211, 315 between possessor and possessee 159 f, 164 f, 202 f, 209, 211, 228 ff, 313 f, 319 f in the nominal phrase 12, 29, 219, 308 on adjectives 9, 40, 45 ff, 50, 213, 299 ff AgrG 235 f Alienable possession 34 Articles see Definiteness markers Augmentatives 10 B. Bare singular nominals (BSNs) 251 ff and agreement 264 f and binding 264 f

342

SUBJECT INDEX

and negation 262 and referentiality 254 f, 264 and quantification 254, 261 f and telicity 262 as antecedents 262 f as arguments 252 ff, 259 as predicates 255 ff in coordination 276 f size of 264 type emphasising 255 under ‘consider’ 269 ff with relative clauses 265, 273 Base-generated order 62, 151, 304 ff, 309, 312, 321 Binding and BSNs 264 of adjectival inflection by D 28 of correlate from inside relative clause 91 of argument of adjective by head noun 6 of complement of possessed noun by possessor 142 f, 151 f of possessive suffix 319 f out of argument PPs 152 f, 154 out of possessive PPs 151 ff Body parts 34, 142, 189 C. Cardinal numerals 10 f, 14 Card head/CardP 10 ff, 264, 274, 305, 309 Case features 5, 154 Case marking inside possessive PPs 148 f, 196 of pronominal possessor 163 see also Licensing Classifier 23, 305 Class marker 147 f Clitics 168, 175, 224, 227 Comparison of types 252 Compounds 242, 285

Control relation 138 Conventional situation type 253 ff, 258 f Coordination 34 f, 170, 182 f of adjectives 8, 48 f of bare definites 252 of CP and DP 183 f of DP and PP 182, 184 f of possessors 169 ff, 178 ff, 185 ff, 215 f of postcopular phrases 273 ff, 278 of PPs 119 of predicates 183, 275 ff of predications 284, 286 ff Correlate of relative clause 79, 87 ff, 94, 100, 102 ff CPs and case 184 as complements to α 94 f D. D 14 ff, 75 f, 123, 179, 234, 251, 281 incorporation of 60, 115, 117 spellout of 18 ff, 33 f, 44, 55, 57, 64, 67, 76, 97, 111, 113 ff, 134, 136 f, 165, 175, 177, 194, 208, 211 f, 214, 243 f, 298 f, 301, 303, 316, 321 see also DPOSS, Identification of D Dative 5, 106, 148 f, 158, 173 f, 222 see also Ethical dative Definiteness 38 f, 102 ff, 132 f, 136, 219, 303 f, 320 and possessors 143 ff, 161 f, 195, 199 f, 210 f, 237, 247 ff, 316, 318 f, 321 and pseudopossessors 239, 241 f, 245 f strength of 57, 114, 304

SUBJECT INDEX

see also Formal definiteness, Indefiniteness, Semantic definiteness Definiteness effect 41, 101, 133, 157 Definiteness marker 298 f, 311, 315, 318, 321 in relative clause constructions 98 ff on adjectives 63 f, 299 ff, 311, 321 suffixed 4, 35 ff, 38 ff, 44, 64 ff, 71, 76, 78 f, 112 ff, 130, 150, 175, 211 f, 300 ff suffixed on possessed noun 143, 156, 158 f, 161, 164, 173, 189 ff , 202, 213, 233 f with possessors 199, 212, 233 f with pseudopossessors 237 ff see also Determiner Degree elements 7 f, 47 f, 239 f, 300, 302 Deictic 33, 61, 117, 291 Demonstratives 1, 29, 42, 58 ff, 109 ff, 118 f, 298, 306 ff and case 124 f and predicative nominals 290 f morphologically complex 116 ff, 125 with possessors 206 with pseudopossessors 239, 242, 244 DemP 60, 68, 76, 109 ff, 126 ff, 131 f, 137, 206, 289, 291, 296, 306 ff Depictive 31 Determiners as part of AP 41 f indefinite 251, 254 ff, 266 ff, 277, 300 preposed/prenominal 29 ff, 34 ff, 57, 65 f, 71, 77 ff, 108, 114,

343

118 ff, 136 f, 151, 154, 169, 283 f, 300, 312 with demonstratives 60 f, 109 ff, 113 f with mass nouns 19, 259 ff with prenominal possessor 206 f, 209 f, 212 f with relative clause 77 ff, 86 ff, 93 with strong quantifier 130, 133 ff, 207 with pseudopossessors 242 ff Diminutives 10 Discourse anaphor 133 f Distributed Morphology 46 f Double definiteness 26, 28, 35, 57, 75, 88, 99, 112, 195, 305, 320 DP 11 f, 193 ff, 264, 286, 289, 291, 301, 322 DPOSS 162, 165 f, 172 f, 175, 177 f, 203, 234 Dummy element 42 inflection 44 possessee 181 E. Embedding under ‘consider’ 83, 269 ff, 277, 288 EPP 163 Equative statement 268, 270 ff, 280, 293, 295 Ethical dative 260 Existential constructions 41 Existential contexts 14, 17 Existential presupposition 33, 282 Expletive 97, 132 f, 157, 161, 200, 247, 249 Extensional interpretation 277, 284, 288, 296 see also Referentiality

344

SUBJECT INDEX

F. Focus 13, 21 f, 160, 170 ff, 203 ff, 207, 209, 219 f, 249, 266, 288, 300, 318 Focus position 13, 301 Formal (in)definiteness 41, 101, 249, 282 Functional prepositions 154 f see also Possessive prepositions, Possessive PPs G. Garpegenitiv 214 Gender 3 f, 6, 18, 22, 27, 30, 45, 47, 65, 71 f, 95, 107, 126, 146, 162, 213 f, 219 f, 227, 263, 299, 308 semantic 126 Generic contexts/readings 14, 17, 36, 80, 101, 256 Genitive 105, 139 f, 149, 156 ff, 164, 166, 173 f, 185 f, 188, 195, 205, 214, 222 f, 227, 248, 317, 322 Goal 12, 207 f H. Human construction 74 I. Identification of D 14, 18, 29 f, 112, 132, 136, 244, 250, 298, 301, 303 in relative clause constructions 88 f, 96 Idioms 86 Impoverishment 47 Inalienable possession 33, 138 f, 142, 144, 188 ff Inclusiveness 38 f, 41 ff, 81, 102, 247, 281 f, 284 Indefinite determiner see Determiner

Indefiniteness 18, 46, 136, 143 ff, 150 f, 315 Indefinite plural 19 f, 267 Indefinite possessed nouns 190 f Indefinite singular 20 f Indirect reference by association 33 Individual level predicate 292 Inherently relational nouns 138 f, 145, 190 f, 204 Inherent relation 138 Intensional interpretation 35, 276 f, 284, 286, 288 ff, 296 Intensive reflexives 103 Inverse order 304, 310, 314 K. Kind Denoting Phrase (KIP) 274 ff Kind-referring expression 17, 276 Kinship terms 138 ff, 149, 161, 173, 188 ff, 221, 227, 236, 319 L. Legal possession 139 Lexical case 158 Licensing of conjuncts 183, 185 of dative possessors 158, 173 f of DPs 322 of genitive possessors 156 ff, 195, 202, 318 of nonpronominal possessors 119, 223, 316, 318 of possessive PPs 145 ff of possessors of inherently relational nouns 190 f of possessors consisting of pronoun and quantifier 231 of postnominal possessors 143, 195, 316 of PP objects 185 of prenominal possessors 210 of pronominal possessors 159, 163 f, 210, 316, 318

SUBJECT INDEX

of pronominal possessors with proper names 173 see also Case marking Linking particle 305 Logophor 156 M. Mass nouns 2, 19, 22 f, 259 ff Measure phrase 49 Merge vs. Move 44 Morphological case 18, 23 f, 30, 45, 56, 105, 136, 154 f, 158 f, 222, 298 see also Personal pronouns N. n 4 ff, 35 ff, 57, 66, 76, 98 ff, 163, 192, 282, 308, 322 as a case licenser 149, 158 ff, 163 f, 219 spellout of 4, 18, 28, 35, 38 f, 56 f, 66, 72 f, 96, 99 f, 128, 146 f, 157 ff, 164, 174, 192 f, 202 f, 213 f, 249, 297 ff, 311, 316, 320 N movement 2, 4, 28, 110, 147, 151, 201, 303, 306, 308 f, 311, 314, 316, 320 f Negative polarity 36, 90 f, 94 Nominal category feature 4 f, 18, 29, 33, 55, 59, 75, 112, 134, 136 f, 181, 208, 225 Nominal predicates see Predicative nominals Nominalisation 144 f, 152 Nonspecificity see Specificity nP 5, 12, 73, 143, 146 ff, 155, 162 f, 192 f, 264, 274, 279, 282, 286 as an argument 193, 264 as a phase 4, 73, 202, 316, 321 movement of 28 f, 39, 44, 66, 72, 75 f, 88, 100, 108, 113 f,

345

132, 135 f, 151, 153, 178, 212, 298, 303 ff, 311 f, 315, 321 movement through Spec of 201 NP 2 f, 12, 166, 309, 322 Number agreement 106 f Number feature 2, 5, 18, 22, 27, 45, 112, 146 f, 162, 164 ff, 190, 219 f, 299, 308, 319 Number marker 2 f, 71, 120, 151, 314, 321 Numerals 1, 10 f, 20 f, 26, 29 f, 34, 54 ff, 58 ff, 65 f, 68, 75 f, 91, 212, 218, 286 ff, 298, 306, 310, 312, 317 see also Cardinal numerals, Ordinal numerals Num head/NumP 2 ff, 10, 12, 28 f, 44, 67, 72, 76, 128, 137, 146 f, 162 f, 190, 219, 306, 308, 314, 320 ff O. Objects coordination of 181 ff of deverbal nouns 144 see also PPs Object shift 175 Ordinal numerals 12 f Overt case see Morphological case OV order 322 P. Partitive 19, 101, 142, 145, 150 Part-whole relation 138, 144, 189 Past participle 73 Personal pronouns 109, 119 ff, 137, 317 as demonstratives 123 ff case distinctions on 120 f, 124 syntactic position of 127 weak 124, 128, 175

346

SUBJECT INDEX

with nouns 123 ff, 168 with PPs 122, 125 f, 167 see also Possessors, Relative clause Person feature 146 f, 165, 319 see also Third person Phase 4, 73, 202, 219, 316, 318, 321 Phonologically empty N 42, 43, 55, 72, 74, 76, 95, 122, 129, 136, 209 f, 215, 303 PLACE nominal 184 f Plural marker see Number marker Polarity see Negative polarity, Positive polarity Positive polarity 266 Possessive construction 138 f Possessive PPs 140 ff, 188 f, 193, 211 binding out of 155 ff constituency of 147, 153 coordination of 179 focusing of 204 see also Definiteness, Case marking, Licensing Possessive preposition 145, 149 f, 154 f, 173, 195 f Possessive pronoun and proper name construction 141 f, 168 ff, 176 ff, 221, 229, 235 Possessive pronouns 140 f, 162, 164 ff, 176 f, 192, 202 f, 209, 216 f, 220, 222 f, 234, 317 with modifiers 167 with proprial articles 177 with quantifiers 167 f, 227 ff see also Case marking, Definiteness, Possessors Possessive –s 197 f, 223 ff, 233 ff, 287 Possessive suffix 146 f, 319 f

Possessor relation 138 f, 317, 322 see also Agentive relation, Control relation, Inherent relation, Part-whole relation Possessors animate 226 base position of 2 f, 143 focused 160, 170 ff, 203 ff, 207, 209, 219 f, 318 inanimate 198, 226 movement of 201, 204 ff, 214 f, 217, 219 f, 224, 236, 249, 306, 309, 318 nonpronominal 139 f, 143, 156 ff, 180, 185 f, 195, 198, 214, 216 phonologically empty 34, 202 postnominal 138 ff, 149 ff, 156 ff, 166 f, 169, 171 f, 176 ff, 185 ff, 195, 236, 307 f, 321 f prenominal 111, 143, 170 ff, 197 ff, 206 ff, 214, 249, 281, 299, 317, 322 pronominal 140 f, 159 ff, 189, 197 f, 201, 206, 208, 221 f, 225, 314 with accusative case 189 with dative case 158, 173 f with genitive case 139 f, 156 ff, 161, 173, 188, 202, 205, 214, 248, 317, 322 with pseudopossessors 238 f, 241, 245 see also Case marking, Coordination, Definiteness, Inalienable possession, Licensing, Movement of possessors, Possessive PPs, Proper name possessor POSS feature 145 ff, 151, 154, 156 f, 159, 162, 165 f, 171, 173, 177, 186 f, 190, 192 f, 195 f, 201, 207 f, 218 ff, 231, 236, 249, 316, 321 f

SUBJECT INDEX

Poss head/PossP 153, 165 f, 169, 201, 206 ff, 214, 218 ff, 223, 231, 249, 274, 281, 318, 321 Postpositions 105, 317, 322 PPs after personal pronouns 121 f, 125 f as arguments/complements of nouns 1 ff, 67 ff, 87, 100, 110 f, 142, 144, 151 f as objects 182, 185 fronting inside DP 68 f, 111, 207, 309 see also Possessive PPs Predicative Determiner Phrase (PDP) 274 ff, 284, 287 Predicative nominals 251, 266, 268 ff, 274, 277 ff and numerals 286 ff definite 278 f possessed 279 ff size of 278, 291, 295 f with adjectives 288 f with demonstratives 290 f with relative clauses 82 f, 102, 106 f, 272 f, 277 with strong quantifiers 252, 289 f Pred head/PredP 183, 252, 257, 269 f, 275, 278, 292 f, 295 Prenominal modifiers 26, 28, 39, 44, 54, 65, 67, 71, 75, 77, 82, 88 f, 93 f, 108, 114, 151, 194, 201, 212 Prenominal possessor doubling construction 175 f, 198, 214 ff, 226 Prepositions 322 Present participle 70 Probe 12 Proform 21 Proper name 14 ff, 31 f, 77, 83 ff, 87, 102, 174 ff

347

possessor 141 f, 194 f, 205, 221, 227, 233, 236 see also Possessive pronoun and proper name construction, Relative clause Proprial article 85, 124, 174 ff, 221, 235 Prosodic words 62 f, 76, 226 Pseudoclefting of predicates 272 f, 277 Pseudopossessors 237 ff, 250 characterising 244 ff measure 241 ff swearword 238 ff Q. QP 50 f, 53, 131 f, 229, 252, 289, 291 Quantifier 1, 10, 225 float 131 f in relative clause constructions 89, 91, 93 f, 108 see also Strong quantifiers, Weak quantifiers R. Raising analysis of relative clauses 87 ff Reconstruction 91 Referential index 18, 29, 34 Referentiality 17 f, 23, 30, 32, 36, 55 ff, 295 of BSNs 254 f, 264 of demonstratives 59 of predicative nominals 268, 273, 279, 284 see also Extensional reading Reflexive possessive marker 198, 215 ff, 220 f, 232, 240, 281 Reflexive possessive pronoun 6, 91, 214, 216, 219 f, 264 Reflexive predicate 155 Reflexive pronouns 155 f

348

SUBJECT INDEX

see also Intensive reflexives Relative clause 306 after BSNs 254, 265 after personal pronouns 122, 125 f after proper names 84 f, 102 nonfinite 104, 265 nonrestrictive 79 f, 89 f, 92 f, 254, 272 f, 277 reduced 45, 104, 144, 155 restrictive 77 ff, 84, 86 f, 89 f, 94 ff, 242, 244 Relative complementiser 87, 92, 97 Relative operator 92 f, 98, 102 ff, 265 Relative pronoun 92, 105 Roll-up movement 310 f, 314, 321 S. Saxon genitive 223 Semantic (in)definiteness 41 ff, 101, 158, 200, 248 f Set of selection 17 f Speaker-oriented evaluation 257 ff, 268 Specificity 36 ff, 41 f, 80 ff, 98 ff, 201, 247 ff, 266 f Stage level predicate 292 Stress 20 f Strong Determiner Phrase (SDP) 274 f, 287 Strong inflection 9, 45, 48, 219, 247 Strong quantifiers 109, 129 ff, 311 in predicative nominals 252, 289 f with demonstratives 131 with indefinite nouns 132 f, 136

with numerals 133 f with possessors 207 Structural case 148, 158, 163 Superlative 37, 39 ff, 42 f, 50 ff, 69, 109, 192, 207, 284, 288 f T. Third person 147, 220 Token anaphors 263 Tone 314 Topicalisation of predicates 271 f, 277 Type anaphors 263 Type-expressions 86 U. Uniqueness 39, 43 Universal #20 304, 306 Universal base order 62, 297, 304, 322 Unvalued features 12, 162, 164 f, 320 V. Valuation of features 12, 18, 146, 148, 162 f, 165, 190, 320 Valued features 12, 162 Verbal predicates 292 Vocative 31, 39, 66 VO order 322 W. Weak inflection 27, 44 f, 47, 66, 199 loss of 62 f Weak quantifiers 10, 21, 26, 29 f, 67, 75, 129, 133, 226 WQP 10, 12

In the series Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today the following titles have been published thus far or are scheduled for publication: 90 DALMI, Gréte: The Role of Agreement in Non-Finite Predication. xv, 221 pp. Expected November 2005 89 VELDE, John R. te: Deriving Coordinate Symmetries. A phase-based approach integrating Select, Merge, Copy and Match. x, 377 pp. + index. Expected December 2005 88 MOHR, Sabine: Clausal Architecture and Subject Positions. Impersonal constructions in the Germanic languages. 2005. viii, 207 pp. 87 JULIEN, Marit: Nominal Phrases from a Scandinavian Perspective. 2005. xvi, 348 pp. 86 COSTA, João and Maria Cristina FIGUEIREDO SILVA (eds.): Studies on Agreement. vi, 281 pp. + index. Expected February 2006 85 MIKKELSEN, Line: Copular Clauses. Speciﬁcation, predication and equation. viii, 210 pp. Expected October 2005 84 PAFEL, Jürgen: Quantiﬁer Scope in German. xvi, 309 pp. + index. Expected December 2005 83 SCHWEIKERT, Walter: The Order of Prepositional Phrases in the Structure of the Clause. 2005. xii, 338 pp. 82 QUINN, Heidi: The Distribution of Pronoun Case Forms in English. 2005. xii, 409 pp. 81 FUSS, Eric: The Rise of Agreement. A formal approach to the syntax and grammaticalization of verbal inﬂection. xi, 335 pp. Expected October 2005 80 BURKHARDT, Petra: The Syntax–Discourse Interface. Representing and interpreting dependency. 2005. xii, 259 pp. 79 SCHMID, Tanja: Inﬁnitival Syntax. Inﬁnitivus Pro Participio as a repair strategy. 2005. xiv, 251 pp. 78 DIKKEN, Marcel den and Christina M. TORTORA (eds.): The Function of Function Words and Functional Categories. 2005. vii, 292 pp. 77 ÖZTÜRK, Balkız: Case, Referentiality and Phrase Structure. 2005. x, 268 pp. 76 STAVROU, Melita and Arhonto TERZI (eds.): Advances in Greek Generative Syntax. In honor of Dimitra Theophanopoulou-Kontou. 2005. viii, 366 pp. 75 DI SCIULLO, Anna Maria (ed.): UG and External Systems. Language, brain and computation. 2005. xviii, 398 pp. 74 HEGGIE, Lorie and Francisco ORDÓÑEZ (eds.): Clitic and Aﬃx Combinations. Theoretical perspectives. 2005. viii, 390 pp. 73 CARNIE, Andrew, Heidi HARLEY and Sheila Ann DOOLEY (eds.): Verb First. On the syntax of verb-initial languages. 2005. xiv, 434 pp. 72 FUSS, Eric and Carola TRIPS (eds.): Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar. 2004. viii, 228 pp. 71 GELDEREN, Elly van: Grammaticalization as Economy. 2004. xvi, 320 pp. 70 AUSTIN, Jennifer R., Stefan ENGELBERG and Gisa RAUH (eds.): Adverbials. The interplay between meaning, context, and syntactic structure. 2004. x, 346 pp. 69 KISS, Katalin É. and Henk van RIEMSDIJK (eds.): Verb Clusters. A study of Hungarian, German and Dutch. 2004. vi, 514 pp. 68 BREUL, Carsten: Focus Structure in Generative Grammar. An integrated syntactic, semantic and intonational approach. 2004. x, 432 pp. 67 MIŠESKA TOMIĆ, Olga (ed.): Balkan Syntax and Semantics. 2004. xvi, 499 pp. 66 GROHMANN, Kleanthes K.: Proliﬁc Domains. On the Anti-Locality of movement dependencies. 2003. xvi, 372 pp. 65 MANNINEN, Satu Helena: Small Phrase Layers. A study of Finnish Manner Adverbials. 2003. xii, 275 pp. 64 BOECKX, Cedric and Kleanthes K. GROHMANN (eds.): Multiple Wh-Fronting. 2003. x, 292 pp. 63 BOECKX, Cedric: Islands and Chains. Resumption as stranding. 2003. xii, 224 pp. 62 CARNIE, Andrew, Heidi HARLEY and MaryAnn WILLIE (eds.): Formal Approaches to Function in Grammar. In honor of Eloise Jelinek. 2003. xii, 378 pp. 61 SCHWABE, Kerstin and Susanne WINKLER (eds.): The Interfaces. Deriving and interpreting omitted structures. 2003. vi, 403 pp. 60 TRIPS, Carola: From OV to VO in Early Middle English. 2002. xiv, 359 pp. 59 DEHÉ, Nicole: Particle Verbs in English. Syntax, information structure and intonation. 2002. xii, 305 pp. 58 DI SCIULLO, Anna Maria (ed.): Asymmetry in Grammar. Volume 2: Morphology, phonology, acquisition. 2003. vi, 309 pp. 57 DI SCIULLO, Anna Maria (ed.): Asymmetry in Grammar. Volume 1: Syntax and semantics. 2003. vi, 405 pp.

A complete list of titles in this series can be found on the publishers’ website, www.benjamins.com