Oblique Subjects and Stylistic Fronting in the History of Scandinavian And
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Oblique Subjects and Stylistic Fronting in the History of Scandinavian and English The Role of IP-Spec Ikke-Nominative Subjekter og Stilistisk Fremflytning i den skandinaviske og den engelske Sproghistorie IP-Spec Positionens Rolle Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson Ph.d.-afhandling / Ph.D. dissertation Nordisk Institut / Scandinavian Institute Aarhus Universitet / University of Aarhus c 2004 Ein var þá tunga á Englandi sem í Noregi og í Danmörku. En þá skiptust tungur í Englandi er Vilhjálmur bastarður vann England. Gekk þaðan af í Englandi valska er hann var þaðan ættaður. Gunnlaugs saga ormstungu In those days, the same language was spoken in England as in Norway and Denmark. But the language changed in England when William the Bastard conquered England. After that, French was used in England because he was of French descent. The saga of Gunnlaug Serpent-tounge Acknowledgements The idea saw daylight one summer day 1998 on the B 27 from Stuttgart to Tübingen with a diet coke in the one hand and a döner kebap in the other. At that time, it seemed very unrealistic to me. For the idea, for motivating me to apply for the Graduiertenkolleg in Stuttgart and later for the SHF grant in Denmark, and not least for being my supervisor during the years it took me to write this thesis, my deepest gratitude goes to Sten Vikner. It is because of Sten’s incredibly pedagogic way of teaching and him sharing his endless enthusiasm for language and linguistics that I found out that doing linguistics could be fun. Henrik Jørgensen who has been my supervisor in Århus also deserves special thanks. His insight into the history of the Danish language has been extremely helpful and I am very grateful to him for the interest he has continuously shown in my work. I would also like to thank the following people who have helped me so much in the past years and from whom I have gained so much academically: Judith Aissen, Silke Fischer (who taught me almost everything I know about minimalism), Jane Grimshaw, Jóhannes Gísli Jóns- son, Gereon Müller, Ian Roberts, Tanja Schmid (who was the first to teach me OT), and Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson. One other person deserves special thanks. For making the academic life (as well as the social life) in Århus more interesting, for all the time, effort and energy he has spent discussing every little detail of my work, and for tolerating me playing (an) Icelandic punk all the time, I am deeply grateful to Ken Ramshøj Christensen. Some of the ideas presented here were originally meant as theoretical provocations during many of our discussions. They turned out to be less controversial than at first sight only because Ken is not so easy to provoke. Thanks to my fellow syntacticians in the Stuttgart Graduiertenkolleg, Arne Martinus Lind- stad, Anna Erechko, Fabian Heck, Carola Trips, Roberta D’Alessandro, and Sabine Mohr. I would also like to thank the members of the Stuttgart OT-Syntax Project, Silke Fischer, Fabian Heck, Jonas Kuhn, Gereon Müller, Tanja Schmid, Sten Vikner, and Ralf Vogel, for in- spiring project meetings. From October through December 2001, I had the opportunity to visit the University of Pots- dam. There, I was lucky to have many meetings with Jane Grimshaw. For those meetings and for Jane’s interest in my work, I am very grateful. I would also like to thank Gisbert Fanselow, Caroline Féry and Ralf Vogel for the discussions we had. During my stay in York (October 2002), I had the opportunity to learn how to use the English Parsed Corpora Series. For granting me access to the corpora, for teaching me how to use them, and not least for making me feel welcome in York, I am grateful to Susan Pintzuk, Ann Taylor, i and Anthony Warner. Thanks to Kook-Hee, Leendert and Dora for letting me into their office and special thanks to Kook-Hee for sharing my interest in feeding geese. During my stay in Santa Cruz (September - October 2003), I had the opportunity to discuss large parts of my thesis with many people. First and foremost, my deepest gratitude goes to Judith Aissen for the marathon meetings we had. Her strict (albeit very appreciated) criticism came at a crucial time in the writing of my thesis. Line Mikkelsen also deserves special thanks for the discussions we had in Santa Cruz and Århus, and for the unforgettable hike in Pfeiffer Big Sur and at Point Lobos. She and Patrick made me feel welcome in Santa Cruz and I am so grateful to them for letting me crash in their sofa, for pick-up and drop-of at the airport, dinners, video evenings, the tours to Trader Joe’s for getting Icelandic water and German chocolate, and not least for a great birthday party on the beach. I would also like to thank Donka Farkas and Jim McCloskey for valuable discussions. Thanks to my fellow Cave dwellers for the nights out on town and for allowing me to confiscate one of the computers. Apart from the people already mentioned, many people have contributed to my dissertation in various ways. For helpful discussions, valuable comments, and support, I would like to thank Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou, Jóhanna Barðdal, Miriam Butt, Grzegorz Dogil, Cecilia Falk, Hubert Haider, Britta Jensen, Marit Julien, Hans Kamp, Marita Akhøj Nielsen, Christer Platzack, Vieri Samek-Lodovici, Peter Sells, and Peter Svenonius. I would also like to thank the audiences at the OT Workshops in Potsdam (2001) and Berlin (2003), Grammatik i Fokus in Lund (2002), MUDS 9 in Århus (2002), SWOT in Gothenburg (2002), the XVIth ICHL in Copenhagen (2003), and at the 20th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics in Helsinki (2004), where parts of this thesis were presented. The research reported in this thesis was partially supported by the German Research Founda- tion (DFG) as part of the Graduiertenkolleg Linguistic representations and their interpretation at the University of Stuttgart (May 2000 - January 2002), and partially with a grant from the Danish Research Council for the Humanities (SHF, grant # 25-01-0467, February 2002 - Jan- uary 2004). I am very grateful to the two institutions for giving me the opportunity to write this dissertation. Sometimes, there are no words great enough to express your gratitude. Ein großer herzlicher Dank an Sten, Ramona, Thomas und Jakob. Die letzten Jahre habt Ihr mir wirklich unglaublich viel geholfen. Nicht nur habt Ihr mir erlaubt bei Euch im Hause zu wohnen, Ihr seid wie eine Familie für mich gewesen, zuerst in Stuttgart, dann hier in Århus. Für Eure Freundschaft werde ich für immer dankbar, und die werde ich auch für immer schätzen. Hjartans, hjartans þakkir til mömmu, Maríu, Harðar, Kristjáns og Hrafns, Gígju, Jóns, Guð- mundar og Ingunnar fyrir allt, bæði andlega upplyftingu, stuðning og heimili á Íslandi og í Noregi. ii Contents Acknowledgements i Abbreviations vii 1. Introduction 1 1.1. Optimality Theory . .......................... 5 1.2. The minimalist program . .......................... 11 1.3. Using electronic corpora . .......................... 16 1.4. The subject positions . .......................... 21 1.4.1. Thematic roles and case . ................... 21 1.4.2. Main vs. embedded clauses, expletive subjects . ............ 23 1.4.3. The Diderichsen tradition . ................... 29 I. Case and agreement 31 2. Case and inflectional morphology 33 2.1. Inflectional morphology . .......................... 37 2.1.1. Case morphology . .......................... 41 2.1.2. Loss of morphological case markers in MSc . ............ 43 2.1.3. Dative . ................................. 44 2.2. Case and agreement in the history of Scandinavian and English . ..... 49 2.2.1. The DATIVE-NOMINATIVE stage ................... 50 2.2.2. The DATIVE-ACCUSATIVE stage ................... 53 2.2.3. The NOMINATIVE-ACCUSATIVE stage . ............ 55 2.3. Non-nominative subjects in Old and Middle Danish . ............ 59 2.3.1. Subjecthood tests . .......................... 60 2.3.1.1. Position . .......................... 61 2.3.1.2. Reflexivization . ................... 62 2.3.1.3. Conjunction Reduction . ................... 63 2.3.1.4. ECM constructions . ................... 64 2.3.1.5. Raising . .......................... 65 2.3.1.6. Heavy Subject Shift . ................... 65 2.3.1.7. Control . .......................... 66 2.3.1.8. Cliticization .......................... 67 2.3.2. Summary ................................. 67 2.3.3. Conclusion . .......................... 68 2.4. Dative subjects in Old and Middle English ................... 69 iii 2.5. Conclusion . .................................. 74 3. Agreement in DAT-NOM constructions 77 3.1. How number agreement is dependent on person agreement . ......... 77 3.1.1. Summary . ........................... 79 3.1.2. The constraints . ........................... 80 3.1.3. Ranking possibilities ........................... 82 3.2. Subject agreement in Icelandic . .................... 84 3.3. Agreement in DAT-NOM constructions . .................... 87 3.3.1. Person and number as separate feature types . ......... 87 3.3.2. Keeping person and number separate . ................ 91 3.3.2.1. EXT-AGRpers&num as a local constraint conjunction . 93 3.3.2.2. Evidence for NOFEATnum against NOFEATpers&num .... 96 3.3.2.3. Evidence for relativized EXT-AGR .............. 98 3.4. Languages with no morphological agreement . ................ 103 3.5. Conclusion . .................................. 105 3.6. The differences between the present analysis and Samek-Lodovici (2002) . 106 3.7. The default values . ........................... 107 3.8. The crucial constraint rankings . ...................