439 Andere germanische Sprachen
Refine
Language
- English (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2)
Keywords
- Copy deletion (1)
- Danish (1)
- Dutch (1)
- Dänisch (1)
- Freezing (1)
- Head movement (1)
- Icelandic (1)
- Isländisch (1)
- Komplementierer (1)
- Niederländisch (1)
Institute
In the absence of a stranded auxiliary or modal, VP-topicalization in most Germanic languages gives rise to the presence of a dummy verb meaning 'do'. Cross-linguistically, this is a rather uncommon strategy as comparable VP-fronting constructions in other languages, e.g. Hebrew, Polish, and Portuguese, among many others, exhibit verb doubling. A comparison of several recent approaches to verb doubling in VP-fronting reveals that it is the consequence of VP-evacuating head movement of the verb to some higher functional head, which saves the (low copy of the) verb from undergoing copy deletion as part of the low VP copy in the VP-topicalization dependency. Given that almost all Germanic languages have such V-salvaging head movement, namely V-to-C movement, but do not show verb doubling, this paper suggests that V-raising is exceptionally impossible in VP-topicalization clauses and addresses the question of why it is blocked. After discussing and rejecting some conceivable explanations for the lack of verb doubling, I propose that the blocking effect arises from a bleeding interaction between V-to-C movement and VP-to-SpecCP movement. As both operations are triggered by the same head, i.e. C, the VP is always encountered first by a downward search algorithm. Movement of VP then freezes it and its lower copies for subextraction precluding subsequent V-raising. Crucially, this implies that there is no V-to-T raising in most Germanic languages. V2 languages with V-to-T raising, e.g. Yiddish, are correctly predicted to not exhibit the blocking effect.
Clause typing in Germanic
(2018)
The questionnaire investigates the functional left periphery of various finite clauses in Germanic languages, with particular attention paid to clause-typing elements and the combinations thereof. The questionnaire is mostly concerned with clause typing in embedded clauses, but main clause counterparts are also considered for comparative purposes. The chief aim was to achieve comparable results across Germanic languages, though the standardised questionnaire may also be helpful in the study of other languages, too. Most questions examine the availability of various complementisers and clause-typing operators, and in some cases the movement of verbs to the left periphery is also taken into account. The questionnaire is split into seven major parts according to the types of clauses under scrutiny.
All instructions were given in English and the individual questions either concern translations of given sentences from English into the target language, and/or they ask for specific details about the constructions in the target language.
The present document contains the questionnaire itself (together with the instructions given at the beginning of the questionnaire and at the beginning of the individual sections, as well as the questions asking for personal data), the sociolinguistic data of the speakers, and the actual results for the individual languages. Five Germanic languages are included: Dutch, Danish, Icelandic, Norwegian and Swedish. For each language, two informants were recruited. Given the small number of informants, the present study serves as a qualitative investigation and as a basis for further, quantitative and experimental studies.