11.01.2014 Views

Danish in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar - German ...

Danish in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar - German ...

Danish in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar - German ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Object Shi and Negation Shi<br />

d. Men den kommende viceborgmester i Mariager Fjord Kommune har<br />

but the future vice.mayor <strong>in</strong> Mariager Fjord municipality has<br />

[<strong>in</strong>tet] fortalt s<strong>in</strong> partiformand, der nu venter på en forklar<strong>in</strong>g <br />

noth<strong>in</strong>g told his party.leader who now waits for an explanation<br />

‘But the future vice mayor <strong>in</strong> Mariager Fjord municipality has not told his<br />

leader <strong>in</strong> the party anyth<strong>in</strong>g and he is now wait<strong>in</strong>g for an explanation’<br />

is differs from object shi where shi over the f<strong>in</strong>ite verb is impossible (see Section<br />

... on Holmberg’s Generalization). Engels (: p. ) calls this shi<strong>in</strong>g over<br />

the f<strong>in</strong>ite verb the Inverse Holmberg Effect.<br />

e DO can also neg-shi if it <strong>in</strong>dependently occurs <strong>in</strong> a position adjacent to the<br />

negation, because the <strong>in</strong>direct object has shied to the position before the sentential<br />

adjuncts as <strong>in</strong> (a) (Christensen : p. ). In this laer case the Neg-shi is str<strong>in</strong>gvacuous:<br />

you cannot tell from the sequence of words whether the IQP is <strong>in</strong> the position<br />

of the negation or <strong>in</strong> complement position with<strong>in</strong> the VP. However, s<strong>in</strong>ce an IQP is<br />

impossible – or extremely marked – <strong>in</strong> complement position (see example (b)), we have<br />

strong <strong>in</strong>dications that the IQP <strong>in</strong>gen penge (‘no money’) <strong>in</strong> example (a) has <strong>in</strong>deed<br />

undergone neg-shi.<br />

() a. De lånte [hende] i faktisk [<strong>in</strong>gen penge j ] _ i _ j<br />

they lend her actually no money<br />

‘Actually they didn’t lend her any money.’<br />

b. ?* Jeg låner m<strong>in</strong> bror [<strong>in</strong>gen penge]<br />

I lend my brother no money<br />

‘I am not lend<strong>in</strong>g my brother any money.’<br />

If neither of these two conditions is met, an IQP as a DO cannot undergo neg-Shi as<br />

shown <strong>in</strong> ().<br />

()<br />

* Jeg låner [<strong>in</strong>gen penge] [m<strong>in</strong> bror]<br />

I lend no money my brother<br />

‘I am not lend<strong>in</strong>g my brother any money.’<br />

A neg-shied complement cannot conta<strong>in</strong> any post-nom<strong>in</strong>al modifiers (Christensen :<br />

p. ). e shied constituent must be syntactically light. Neg-shi<strong>in</strong>g strands postnom<strong>in</strong>al<br />

modifiers <strong>in</strong> the canonical position of the complement. Interest<strong>in</strong>gly strand<strong>in</strong>g<br />

of post-nom<strong>in</strong>al modifiers is generally not possible outside neg-shi<strong>in</strong>g contexts.<br />

In (a) the object <strong>in</strong>gen <strong>in</strong>dflydelse (‘no <strong>in</strong>fluence’) has shied leav<strong>in</strong>g the PP-modifier<br />

på de beslutn<strong>in</strong>ger (‘on those decisions’) with<strong>in</strong> the VP. Example (b) shows that the<br />

PP cannot shi along with the object and example (c) shows, that post-nom<strong>in</strong>al PPs<br />

cannot be stranded outside neg-shi, e. g. if the head-noun is topicalized.<br />

http://www.bt.dk/krimi/viceborgmester-i-slagsmaal-med-doermand, / <br />

<br />

Dra of October , , :

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!