Advertisement

Objects as locations in English and Mainland Scandinavian

  • Björn LundquistEmail author
  • Gillian Ramchand
Original Paper
  • 229 Downloads

Abstract

This article discusses the spatial particles/prepositions up, down, in and out in four languages: English, Norwegian, Swedish and Danish. These spatial items can select directly for a DP complement in English and Norwegian, thus looking like regular prepositions; they require a complement preceded by a light preposition in Danish and Swedish, thus looking more like particles. We will argue that in none of the four languages under discussion can the relevant spatial items directly select a DP ground element, but require either an overt or a null P head that converts a DP object to a path location.

Keywords

Particles Prepositions Paths Locations Scandinavian languages Resultatives English 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beck, S., and K. Johnson. 2002. Double objects again. Linguistic Inquiry 35:97–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. den Dikken, M. 1995. Particles: on the syntax of verb-particle, triadic and causative constructions. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. den Dikken, M. 2009. On the functional structure of locative and directional pps. In The cartography of prepositional phrases, eds. G. Cinque and L. Rizzi. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Folli, R. 2003. Deriving telicity in English and Italian. Ph. D thesis, Oxford University.Google Scholar
  5. Gawron, J.-M. 2003. Generalized paths. Paper presented at SALT XV, available at http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~gawron/salt_paper.pdf.
  6. Hale, K., and S. J. Keyser. 2002. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Number 39 in linguistic inquiry monograph. Cambridge: MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Higginbotham, J. 2001. Accomplishments. ms. Oxford University.Google Scholar
  8. Hulthén, L. 1944. Jämförande Nunordisk Syntax. Göteborgs Högskolas Årsskrift. Göteborg: Elanders Boktryckeri Acktiebolag.Google Scholar
  9. Kayne, R.S. 2004. Here and there. In Syntax, lexis and lexicon-grammar: papers in honor of Maurice Gross, eds. C. Leclère, E. Laporte, M. Piot and M. Silberztein, 2453–273. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  10. Kracht, M. 2002. On the semantics of locatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 25:157–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Krifka, M. 1998. The origins of telicity. In Events and grammar, ed. S. Rothstein, 197–235. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  12. Lakusta, L., and B. Landau. 2005. Starting at the end: the importance of goals in spatial language. Cognition 96:1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lakusta, L., and B. Landau. 2012. Language and memory for motion events: origins of the asymmetry between goal and source paths. Cognitive Science, 36(3):517–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lakusta, L., L. Wagner, K., O’Hearn, and B. Landau. 2007. Conceptual foundations of spatial language: evidence for a goal bias in infants. Language Learning and Development 3(3):179–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lundquist, B., and G. Ramchand. 2012. Contact, animacy and affectedness in germanic. In Proceedings of comparative germanic syntax CGSW 23 and 24, eds. P. A. Rhona Alcorn and C. Heycock. John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  16. Pantcheva, M. 2011. Decomposing path. Ph. D. thesis, Universitetet i Tromsø, Tromsø.Google Scholar
  17. Papafragou, A. 2010. Source-goal asymmetries in motion representation: implications for language production and comprehension. Cognitive Science 34:1064–1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Parsons, T. 1990. Events in the semantics of English: a study in subatomic semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Pustejovsky, J. 1991. The syntax of event structure. Cognition 41:47–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Radkevich, N. 2010. On location: the structure of case and adpositions. Ph. D. thesis, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
  21. Ramchand, G. 2008. Verb meaning and the Lexicon. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Regier, T., and M. Zheng. 2007. Attention to endpoints: a cross-linguistic constraint on spatial meaning. Cognitive Science 31:705–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Son, M., and P. Svenonius. 2008.Microparameters of cross-linguistic variation: directed motion and resultatives. In Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguisticsm, eds N. Abner and J. Bishop, 388–396. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  24. Svenonius, P. 1996. The verb-particle alternation in the Scandinavian languages. ms. University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
  25. Svenonius, P. 2006. The emergence of axial parts. Nordlyd Tromsø Working Papers in Linguistics 33(1):49–77.Google Scholar
  26. Svenonius, P. 2008. The position of adjectives and other phrasal modifiers in the decomposition of dp. In Adjectives and adverbs: syntax, semantics and discourse, eds. L. McNally and C. Kennedy, 16–42. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Svenonius, P. 2010. Spatial P in English. In The cartography of syntactic structures, mapping spatial PPs, eds. G. Cinque and L. Rizzi Svenonius, vol 6. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Talmy, L. 1978. Figure and ground in complex sentences. In Universals of human language, ed. J. H. Greenberg, vol 4, 625–649. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Terzi, A. 2010. Locative prepositions and place. In The cartography of syntactic structures, mapping spatial PPs, eds. G. Cinque and L. Rizzi, vol 6, 196–223. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. van Riemsdijk, H. 1978. A case study in syntactic markedness: the binding nature of prepositional phrases (2nd edn). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  31. van Riemsdijk, H, and R Huybregts. 2002. Location and locality. In Progress in grammar: articles at the 20th anniversary of the comparison of grammatical models group in Tilburg, eds. M. van Oostendorp and E. Anagnostopoulou, 1–23. Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut.Google Scholar
  32. von Stechow, A. 1996. The different readings of wieder ‘again’: a structural account. Journal of Semantics 13:87–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wunderlich, D. 1991. How do prepositional phrases fit into compositional syntax and semantics? Linguistics 29:591–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zwarts, J. 2005. Prepositional aspect and the algebra of paths. Linguistics and Philosophy. to appear.Google Scholar
  35. Zwarts, J., and Y. Winter. 2000. Vector space semantics: a model-theoretic analysis of locative prepositions. Journal of Logic Language, and Information 9:169–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UiT The Arctic University of Norway/CASTLTromsøNorway

Personalised recommendations