Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 26, Issue 3, pp 547–587 | Cite as

Stranding, weak pronouns, and the fine structure of the Dutch Mittelfeld

Open Access
Original Paper

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to develop a tool for determining the unmarked position of various PP types in the Dutch Mittelfeld. The paper argues that the distribution of stranded prepositions, which obey a Freezing constraint, can be used for this purpose, and that the same holds for prepositions with a weak pronominal complement. Among the results of this twin diagnostic are independent evidence for a case-movement analysis of scrambling, and support for a particular analysis of predicative complement constructions.

Keywords

Preposition stranding Weak pronouns PP scrambling Middlefield Cartography 

References

  1. Abels, Klaus. 2001. *[P clitic]!—Why? Paper presented at the 4th European conference on formal description of Slavic Languages, Potsdam, University of Potsdam, November 28–30. Google Scholar
  2. Abels, Klaus. 2003. Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut. Google Scholar
  3. Ackema, Peter. 1995. Syntax below zero. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University. Google Scholar
  4. Baart, Joan. 1987. Focus, syntax and accent placement. PhD dissertation, Leiden University. Google Scholar
  5. Bailyn, John, and Edward J. Rubin. 1991. The unification of instrumental case assignment in Russian. In Cornell working papers in linguistics, Vol. 9, eds. Almeida Toribio and Wayne Harbert, 99–126. Ithaca: Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics, Cornell University. Google Scholar
  6. Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: a theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  7. Barbiers, Sjef. 1995. The syntax of interpretation. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. Google Scholar
  8. Bennis, Hans. 1986. Gaps and dummies. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  9. Bennis, Hans. 1992. Long head movement: the position of particles in the verbal cluster in Dutch. In Linguistics in the Netherlands 1992, eds. Reineke Bok-Bennema and Roeland van Hout, 37–47. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  10. Bennis, Hans, and Teun Hoekstra. 1984. Gaps and parasitic gaps. The Linguistic Review 4: 29–87. Google Scholar
  11. Booij, Geert. 1990. The boundary between morphology and syntax: separable complex verbs in Dutch. In The yearbook of morphology 3, eds. Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle, 45–63. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  12. Broekhuis, Hans. 2002. Adpositions and adpositional phrases. Modern grammar of Dutch occasional papers 3. Tilburg University. Google Scholar
  13. Cardinaletti, Anna, and Michal Starke. 1996. Deficient pronouns—A view from Germanic: a study in the unified description of Germanic and Romance. In Studies in comparative Germanic syntax, Vol. II, eds. Höskuldur Thráinsson, Samuel David Epstein, and Steven Peter, 21–65. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  14. Chomsky, Noam. 1974. The Amherst lectures. Université Paris VII, Paris: Département de Recherches Linguistiques. Google Scholar
  15. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: a life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  16. Cinque, Guglielmo. 2002. Complement and adverbial PPs: implications for clause structure. Paper presented at the 25th generative linguistics in the old world conference, April 9–11, in Amsterdam and Utrecht. Google Scholar
  17. Corver, Norbert. 2006. Freezing effects. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, Vol. II, eds. Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, 383–406. Malden: Blackwell. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Culicover, Peter W., and Kenneth Wexler. 1977. Some syntactic implications of a theory of language learnability. In Formal syntax, eds. Peter W. Culicover, Thomas Wasow, and Adrian Akmajian. 7–60. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  19. de Haas, Wim, and Mieke Trommelen. 1993. Morfologisch handboek van het Nederlands: een overzicht van de woordvorming. The Hague: SDU Uitgeverij. Google Scholar
  20. de Rijk, Rudolf. 1967. Object incorporation in Tongan and Dutch. Unpublished ms., MIT. Google Scholar
  21. den Dikken, Marcel. 1995. Particles: on the syntax of verb-particle, triadic, and causative constructions. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  22. Evers, Arnold. 1975. The transformational cycle in Dutch and German. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University. Google Scholar
  23. Evers, Arnold. 2003. Verbal clusters and cluster-creepers. Ms., Utrecht University. Google Scholar
  24. Fox, Danny, and Jon Nissenbaum. 1999. Extraposition and scope: a case for overt QR. In Proceedings of the west coast conference on formal linguistics 18, eds. Sonya Bird, Andrew Carnie, Jason D. Haugen, and Peter Norquest, 132–144. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. Google Scholar
  25. Franks, Steven. 1990. Case, configuration and argumenthood: reflections on the second dative. Russian Linguistics 14: 231–255. Google Scholar
  26. Frey, Werner, and Karin Pittner. 1998. Zur Positionierung der Adverbiale im deutschen Mittelfeld. Linguistische Berichte 176: 489–534. Google Scholar
  27. Guéron, Jacqueline. 1980. On the syntax and semantics of PP-extraposition. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 637–678. Google Scholar
  28. Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1992. Sentence accents and argument structure. In Thematic structure: its role in grammar, ed. Iggy M. Roca, 79–105. Berlin: Foris. Google Scholar
  29. Haegeman, Liliane, and Henk van Riemsdijk. 1986. Verb-Projection raising, scope, and the typology of rules affecting verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 417–466. Google Scholar
  30. Halle, Morris, and Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 1987. An essay on stress. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  31. Helmantel, Marjon. 2002. Interactions in the Dutch adpositional domain. PhD dissertation, Leiden University. Google Scholar
  32. Hinterhölzl, Roland. 2000. Licensing movement and stranding in the West Germanic OV languages. In The derivation of VO and OV, ed. Peter Svenonius, 293–326. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  33. Hoeksema, Jack. 1991. Complex predicates and liberation in Dutch and English. Linguistics and Philosophy 14: 661–710. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hoeksema, Jack. 1993. Suppression of a word-order pattern in West Germanic. In Historical linguistics 1991: papers from the 10th international conference on historical linguistics, ed. Jaap van Marle, 153–174. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  35. Hoekstra, Teun. 1979. The Freezing Principle and stranded prepositions. In Linguistics in the Netherlands, 1977–1979, eds. Wim Zonneveld and Fred Weerman, 321–335. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  36. Hoekstra, Teun. 1984. Transitivity: grammatical relations in government-binding theory. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  37. Hoekstra, Teun, Monic Lansu, and Marion Westerduin. 1987. Complexe verba. Glot 10: 61–78. Google Scholar
  38. Hoekstra, Teun. 1988. Small clause results. Lingua 74: 101–139. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hornstein, Norbert, and Amy Weinberg. 1981. Case theory and preposition stranding. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 55–94. Google Scholar
  40. Horst, Jos. 1980. Preposition stranding in Dutch. Cornucopia I: 85–97. Google Scholar
  41. Kayne, Richard S. 1984. Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  42. Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  43. Koopman, Hilda, and Dominique Sportiche. 1991. The position of subjects. Lingua 85: 211–258 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Koster, Jan. 1973. PP over V en de theorie van Jan Emonds. Spektator 2: 294–311. Google Scholar
  45. Koster, Jan. 1974. Het werkwoord als spiegelcentrum. Spektator 3: 601–618. Google Scholar
  46. Koster, Jan. 1975. Dutch as an SOV language. Linguistic Analysis 1: 111–136. Google Scholar
  47. Koster, Jan. 1978. Locality principles in syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  48. Koster, Jan. 1987. Domains and dynasties. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  49. Koster, Jan. 1994. Predicate incorporation and the word order of Dutch. In Paths toward universal grammar: studies in honor of Richard S. Kayne, eds. Guglielmo Cinque, Jan Koster, Jean-Yves Pollock, Luigi Rizzi, and Raffaella Zanuttini, 255–277. Washington: Georgetown University Press. Google Scholar
  50. Koster, Jan. 1999. The word orders of English and Dutch: collective vs. individual checking. In Groninger arbeiten zur germanistischen linguistik, ed. Werner Abraham, 1–42. Groningen: University of Groningen. Google Scholar
  51. Koster, Jan. 2000. Pied piping and the word orders of English and Dutch. In NELS 30: proceedings of the north east linguistic society, eds. Masako Hirotani, Andries Coetzee, Nancy Hall, and Ji-yung Kim, 415–426. Amherst: GLSA. Google Scholar
  52. Larson, Richard. 1990. Double objects revisited: reply to Jackendoff. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 589–632. Google Scholar
  53. Matushansky, Ora. 2005. Call me Ishmael. In Proceedings of sinn und bedeutung 9, eds. Emar Maier, Corien Bary, and Janneke Huitink. 226–240. Nijmegen: NCS. Google Scholar
  54. Müller, Gereon. 1995. A-bar syntax; a study in movement types. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  55. Müller, Gereon. 1997. Extraposition as remnant movement. In Rightward movement, eds. Dorothee Beerman LeBlanc and Henk van Riemsdijk, 215–246. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  56. Neeleman, Ad. 1994. Complex predicates. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University. Google Scholar
  57. Neeleman, Ad, and Tanya Reinhart. 1998. Scrambling and the PF interface. In The projection of arguments: lexical and compositional factors, eds. Miriam Butt and Wilhelm Geuder, 309–353. Stanford: CSLI. Google Scholar
  58. Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax: experiencers and cascades. Cambridge: MIT. Google Scholar
  59. Reinhart, Tanya. 1995. Interface strategies. In OTS working papers in linguistics. Utrecht: OTS, Utrecht University. Google Scholar
  60. Reinhart, Tanya. 1997. Interface economy: focus and markedness. In The role of economy principles in linguistic theory, eds. Chris Wilder, Hans-Martin Gärtner, and Manfred Bierwisch. 146–169. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Google Scholar
  61. Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT. Google Scholar
  62. Ruys, E.G. In preparation. Predicative complements, scrambling, and accent placement in Dutch. Ms., Utrecht University. Google Scholar
  63. Schweikert, Walter. 2005. The order of prepositional phrases in the structure of the clause. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  64. Simpson, Jane. 1983. Resultatives. In Papers in lexical-functional grammar, eds. Lori Levin, Malka Rappaport, and Annie Zaenen, 143–157. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Google Scholar
  65. Stowell, Tim. 1982. Conditions on reanalysis. In MIT working papers in linguistics 4—papers in syntax, eds. Alec Marantz and Tim Stowell, 245–269. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  66. Sturm, Arie, and Johan Kerstens. 1978. Over verklaren in de taalkunde. In Nieuwe Tegenstellingen op Nederlands taalgebied—Ruygh-bewerp VIII, eds. Peter van Putte and Henk J. Verkuyl, 130–172. Utrecht: Utrecht University. Google Scholar
  67. van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1978. A case study in syntactic markedness: the binding nature of prepositional phrases. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press. Google Scholar
  68. van Riemsdijk, Henk, and Edwin Williams. 1986. Introduction to the theory of grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  69. van den Wyngaerd, Guido. 1989. Object Shift as an A-movement rule. In MIT working papers in linguistics 11: proceedings of the 1st student conference in linguistics, eds. Phil Branigan, Jill Gaulding, Miori Kubo, and Kumiko Murasugi, 256–271. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  70. Walraven, Frans. 1979. Vooropplaatsing en Accentuering van Pronomina in PPs. Gramma 3: 205–208 Google Scholar
  71. Winkler, Susanne. 1994. Secondary predication in English: a syntactic and focus-theoretical approach. PhD dissertation, Universität Tübingen. Google Scholar
  72. Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter. 1992. SOV languages are head initial. Paper presented at the 8th comparative Germanic syntax workshop, November 20–22, in Tromsø. Google Scholar
  73. Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter. 1993. Dutch syntax: a minimalist approach. PhD dissertation, University of Groningen. Google Scholar
  74. Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter. 1997. Morphosyntax of verb movement: a minimalist approach to the syntax of Dutch. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  75. Zwarts, Joost. 1997. Complex prepositions and P-stranding in Dutch. Linguistics 35: 1091–1112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UiL-OTSUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations