pages 11-20 below are replaced part ii the sentence … · vikner: the sentence structure of...

Vikner: The Sentence Structure of English and Danish, p. 1

Pages 11-20 below are REPLACED by the second hand-out (called part II)

The Sentence Structure of English and Danish (part I)

Unikursus 4 & 5, Engelsklærerforeningen for Gymnasiet og HF

21.01. & 25.02.2011, Aarhus Universitet

Sten Vikner Department of English, Institute of Language, Literature & Culture,

University of Aarhus, 8000 Århus C [email protected] - www.hum.au.dk/engelsk/engsv

Wer fremde Sprachen nicht kennt, weiß nichts von seiner eigenen (Goethe, Maximen und Reflexionen II, 1833)

Content

1. Introduction......................................................................................................................................2 1.1 Constituents..............................................................................................................................2 1.2 Constituency tests ....................................................................................................................4

1.2.1 Movement ........................................................................................................................5 1.2.2 Substitution ......................................................................................................................7 1.2.3 Deletion............................................................................................................................8

2. Clause structure in tree analyses and in field analyses ....................................................................9 3. Another field analysis (but with a comparative touch)..................................................................11

3.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................11 3.2 Danish in detail ......................................................................................................................11 3.3 English in detail .....................................................................................................................12 3.4 Common properties Danish/English......................................................................................13

3.4.1 Options in the object box(es) .........................................................................................13 3.4.2 Options in the verb cirle(s) ............................................................................................14

3.5 Differences Danish/English ...................................................................................................15 3.5.1 Main vs. embedded clauses in general...........................................................................15 3.5.2 Topics containing a question element or a negative element ........................................16 3.5.3 Finite verb circle vs. finite aux circle.............................................................................17 3.5.4 There is no second finite circle in Danish......................................................................18 3.5.5 not can trigger do-insertion, ikke cannot........................................................................19

3.6 Concluding remarks ...............................................................................................................20 References..............................................................................................................................................21 Appendix: The British National Corpus ................................................................................................22 "This course will provide an overview of the most important similarities and differences between English and Danish word order. These are both of theoretical interest as well as of practical importance since the differences may very well be where learners have most difficulties. The course will also show how the differences can be analysed within modern syntactic theory as well as within the classic framework of Diderichsen 1946."


1. Introduction

1.1 Constituents This section presents some diagnostics for the identification of the units of clause structure, which are called constituents: Constituent: Any of the parts that make up a whole

(Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, 2003) Constituency: Relation, especially in syntax, between a unit which is part of a larger unit and the

whole of which it is part. E.g. the adjective phrase very friendly is a constituent of the noun phrase very friendly people.

(Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, 1997) Here is an example of constituent structure, not from syntax but from morphology: Words (like clauses) can be ambiguous, i.e. they have more than one potential meaning. Words can be lexically ambiguous, e.g. bat ('animal' or 'instrument'), or arm ('to equip with weapons' or 'a limb') or they can be structurally ambiguous, where the different structures reflect different interpretations (notice also the equivalence of the tree notation and the square bracket notation): (1)

Other words only have one structure: (2) a. un-[want-ed] vs. *[un-want]-ed b. [be-friend]-ed vs. * be-[friend-ed] Here are some parallel examples from Danish and German: (3)

(4) a. dun-[sove-pose]

Daunen-[schlaf-sack] 'sleeping bag of down'

vs. *[ dun-sove]-pose *[ Daunen-schlaf]-sack 'bag for a down sleep'

b. [rød-vins]-glas [Rot-wein]-glas 'glass for red wine'

vs. * rød-[vins-glas] *Rot-[wein-glas] 'wine glass of/for red'

lock un- -able lock un- -able

[un- [lock-able]] 'cannot be locked'

[[un-lock] -able] 'can be unlocked'

a. b.

bil- plastik- nøgle bil-

plastik- nøgle

[Plastik- [auto-schlüssel]] 'car key of plastic'

[Plastik- [auto-schlüssel]] 'key for plastic car'

a. b.


Let us now return to syntax and to clauses. It is easy to find the smallest constituents in a clause (we already know them, they are the words), and it is easy to find the largest constituent (we already know it, it is typically the main clause). What is difficult in constituent analysis is to find the constituents in between, i.e. the constituents larger than the individual words and smaller than the main clause. Take e.g. the expression French wine and cheese: (5)

Is French wine a constituent in (5)a? In (5)b? Is wine and cheese a constituent in (5)a? In (5)b? As illustrated in (5), French and wine form a constituent, in (5)a, but not in (5)b where French and wine are parts of two separate constituents. Conversely, wine and and and cheese form a constituent, in (5)b, but not in (5)a, where wine is part of French wine while and cheese is not.

Can this be related to a difference in interpretation? In other words, if (6) was a sign at a conference or in a hotel, would it be clear which kind of cheese might be served? (6) French wine and cheese will be served in the lounge As we saw in (1), the ambiguity of unlockable is linked to there being two structures, one for each of the two interpretations. The same goes for ambiguous strings of words: They may have more than one structure. While there are (at least) two different possible syntactic constituent structures of French wine and cheese, there could be up to five different constituent structures of the NP (the) Swiss chocolate toy factory: (7)

Are there really five different semantic interpretations? What are they?

a.

Swiss chocolate toy factory

Swiss ew

chocolate

toy

factory

b.

c. d.

Swiss w

chocolate

toy

factory

Swiss w

chocolate

toy

factory

e.

Swiss chocolate

toy

factory

a. b.

wine French cheese

and

wine French cheese

and


Exercise Which of the structures in (7) is most plausible constituent structure for the following? (8) En. a. European parliament election

b. local election campaign organiser c. local democratic party chairman d. large Japanese car seat

e. new English syntax teacher

Interpretations corresponding to the structures in (7)a-e are given in (9)a-e below: (9) En. a. A Swiss factory that is made of chocolate and that makes toys b. A Swiss factory that makes chocolate toys c. A factory that makes chocolate toys which are Swiss d. A factory that makes toys of Swiss chocolate e. A factory that is made of Swiss chocolate and that makes toys

1.2 Constituency tests The way to determine whether or not two or more words constitute a unit is to apply constituency tests. If a string of words passes a constituency test, it may be assumed to be a constituent, whereas if something does not pass a constituency test, no such conclusion may be drawn: (10)

In other words, for a string of words to pass a constituency test, two requirements have to be met: (11) To pass a constituency test,

a. the string must be a constituent (form a unit), AND b. the test must be the right kind of test

There are three main types of tests: movement, substitution, and deletion. We will use the following sentence as a base example for the various constituency tests:

(12) En. The man from LA bought a used car in Berlin (13) Da. Manden fra LA købte en brugt bil i Berlin

Apply constituency

test

� (Pass)

� (Fail)

The string is a constituent

The string is not a constituent, OR it's not the right kind of test.


1.2.1 Movement Topicalisation (also called fronting) (14) [xxx] … … … _____ … … (15) En. a. [In Berlin], the man from LA bought a used car b. [A used car], the man from LA bought in Berlin c. * [Car in], the man from LA bought a used Berlin d. * [In] the man from LA bought a used car Berlin (16) Da. a. [I Berlin] købte manden fra LA en brugt bil b. [En brugt bil] købte manden fra LA i Berlin c. * [Bil i] købte manden fra LA en brugt Berlin d. * [I] købte manden fra LA en brugt bil Berlin What is wrong with (15)c is thus that car and in either do not form a constituent or that they form a constituent of the wrong kind. Given that car forms a constituent with a and used, as shown in (15)b, car cannot at the same time form a constituent with in.

What is wrong with (15)d is also that in either is not a constituent or that it is a constituent of the wrong kind. Given that in IS a constituent on its own (as all individual words are constituents), it must just be a constituent of the wrong kind. Clefting (17) It is/was [xxx] (who / that) … … … _____ … … (18) En. a. It was [in Berlin] that the man from LA bought a used car b. It was [a used car] that the man from LA bought in Berlin c. It was [the man from LA] who bought a used in Berlin d. * It was [the man from] who LA bought a used car in Berlin e. * It was [car in] that the man from LA bought a used Berlin f. * It was [bought] that the man from LA a used car in Berlin (19) Da. a. Det var [i Berlin] manden fra LA købte en brugt bil b. Det var [en brugt bil] manden fra LA købte i Berlin c. Det var [manden fra LA] som købte en brugt i Berlin d. * Det var [manden fra] som LA købte en brugt bil i Berlin e. * Det var [bil i] manden fra LA købte en brugt Berlin f. * Det var [købte] manden fra LA en brugt bil i Berlin


Pseudo-clefting (20) What … _____ … … … is/was [xxx] (21) En. a. Where the man from LA bought a used car was [in Berlin] b. What the man from LA bought in Berlin was [a used car] c. * What the man from LA bought a used Berlin was [car in] d. * Where the man from LA bought a used car Berlin was [in] (22) En. a. The man from LA did buy a used car in Berlin b. What the man from LA did in Berlin was [buy a used car] c. What the man from LA did was [buy a used car in Berlin] d. * What the man from LA did a used car was [buy] [in Berlin] e. * What the man from LA did a used car in Berlin was [buy] (23) Da. a. Der hvor manden fra LA købte en brugt bil var [i Berlin] b. Det manden fra LA købte i Berlin var [en brugt bil] c. * Det manden fra LA købte en brugt Berlin var [bil i] d. * Der hvor manden fra LA købte en brugt bil Berlin var [i] (24) Da. a. Manden fra LA købte en brugt bil i Berlin b. Det manden fra LA gjorde i Berlin var [at købe en brugt bil] c. Det manden fra LA gjorde var [at købe en brugt bil i Berlin] d. * Det manden fra LA gjorde en brugt bil var [at købe] [i Berlin] e. * Det manden fra LA gjorde en brugt bil i Berlin var [at købe] Note that in all of (22), the finite lexical verb bought (inflected for past tense) is 'split in two', i.e. substituted by a finite version of the auxiliary verb do (inflected for past tense) AND the infinitive of the main verb, buy. This does not only happen in pseudo-clefts, but also e.g. to emphasise the truth of the sentence, as in (22)a. Passivisation (25) Someone V-ed something → Something was V-ed _____ (by someone) (26) En. a. ... because [a used car] was bought in Berlin (by the man from LA) b. * ... because [car in] was bought a used Berlin (by the man from LA) c. * ... because [car] was bought a used in Berlin (by the man from LA) d. * ... because [in Berlin] was bought a used car (by the man from LA) (27) Da. a. ... fordi [en brugt bil] blev købt i Berlin (af manden fra LA) b. * ... fordi [bil i] blev købt en brugt Berlin (af manden fra LA) c. * ... fordi [bil] blev købt en brugt i Berlin (af manden fra LA) d. * ... fordi [i Berlin] blev købt en brugt bil (af manden fra LA) Note that this test only works with an object. This is why in Berlin does not pass this test in (26)d, although we know that in Berlin is a constituent from (15)a above.


Heavy NP shift (also called post-posing or extraposition) (28) … … _____ … … … [xxx] This test applies only to 'heavy' ('long') NP constituents. Applying heavy NP shift to 'lighter' ('shorter') constituents is either not very good, (30), or completely ungrammatical, (31). (29) En. a. He bought [an old, rusty, run-down car] in Berlin b. He bought in Berlin [an old, rusty, run-down car] (30) En. a. He bought [a used car] in Berlin b. ?? He bought _________ in Berlin [a used car] (31) En. a. He bought [it] in Berlin b. * He bought __ in Berlin [it] (32) Da. a. Han købte [en gammel, rusten og slidt bil] i Berlin b. ? Han købte i Berlin [en gammel, rusten og slidt bil] (33) Da. a. Han købte [en brugt bil] i Berlin b. ?? Han købte _________ i Berlin [en brugt bil] (34) Da. a. Han købte [den] i Berlin b. * Han købte __ i Berlin [den]

1.2.2 Substitution Substitution by a pronoun (e.g., he/him, she/her, they/them, it) or another proform (e.g., an adverb, here/there, or a verb phrase, such as did so): (35) En. a. [ The man from LA ] [ bought [ a used car ] ] [ in Berlin ] b. [ He ] [ bought [ a used car ] ] [ in Berlin ] c. [ The man from LA ] [ bought [ it ] ] [ in Berlin ] d. [ The man from LA ] [ bought [ a used car ] ] [ there ] e. [ The man from LA ] [ did so ] [ in Berlin ] f. * [ He LA ] [ bought [ a used car ] ] [ in Berlin ] g. * [ The man from LA ] [ bought [ a used car ] ] [ there Berlin ] (36) Da. a. [ Manden fra LA ] [ købte [ en brugt bil ] ] [ i Berlin ] b. [ Han ] [ købte [ en brugt bil ] ] [ i Berlin ] c. [ Manden fra LA ] [ købte [ den ] ] [ i Berlin ] d. [ Manden fra LA ] [ købte [ en brugt bil ] ] [ der ] e. [ Manden fra LA ] [ gjorde det ] [ i Berlin ] f. * [ Han LA ] [ købte [ en brugt bil ] ] [ i Berlin ] g. * [ Manden fra LA ] [ købte [ en brugt bil ] ] [ der Berlin ]


Substitution by a wh-element with subsequent movement to the beginning of the clause: (37) En. a. … that [ the man from LA ] [ bought [ a used car ] ] [ in Berlin ] b. Who [ ] [ bought [ a used car ] ] [ in Berlin ] ? c. What did [ the man from LA ] [ buy [ ] ] [ in Berlin ] ? d. Where did [ the man from LA ] [ buy [ a used car ] ] [ ] ? e. * Who [ LA ] [ bought [ a used car ] ] [ in Berlin ] ? f. * What did [ the man from LA ] [ buy [ car ] ] [ in Berlin ] ? g. * Where did [ the man from LA ] [ buy [ a used car ] ] [ Berlin ] ? (38) Da. a. … at [ manden fra LA ] [ købte [ en brugt bil ] ] [ i Berlin ] b. Hvem købte [ ] [ [ en brugt bil ] ] [ i Berlin ] ? c. Hvad købte [ manden fra LA ] [ [ ] ] [ i Berlin ] ? d. Hvor købte [ manden fra LA ] [ [ en brugt bil ] ] [ ] ? e. * Hvem købte [ LA ] [ [ en brugt bil ] ] [ i Berlin ] ? f. * Hvad købte [ manden fra LA ] [ [ bil ] ] [ i Berlin ] ? g. * Hvor købte [ manden fra LA ] [ [ en brugt bil ] ] [ Berlin ] ? After something has been substituted by a wh-element, this wh-element has to move to the left edge of the clause, as in (37)b-d. Without this subsequent movement, the examples would only be possible as so-called echo-questions:

1.2.3 Deletion Only constituents (and only non-arguments) may be deleted. (41) En. a. [The man [ from LA ]] [bought [a used car]] [ in Berlin ] [ last week ] b. [The man [ ]] [bought [a used car]] [ in Berlin ] [ last week ] c. [The man [ from LA ]] [bought [a used car]] [ in Berlin ] [ ] d. [The man [ from LA ]] [bought [a used car]] [ ] [ last week ] e. [The man [ from LA ]] [bought [a used car]] [ ] [ ] (2 deletions) f. [The man [ ]] [bought [a used car]] [ ] [ last week ] (2 deletions) g. * [The [ LA ]] [bought [a used car]] [ in Berlin ] [ last week ] (42) Da. a. [Den gamle mand [ fra LA ]] [købte [en brugt bil]] [ i Berlin ] [ i går ] b. [Den gamle mand [ ]] [købte [en brugt bil]] [ i Berlin ] [ i går ] c. [Den gamle mand [ fra LA ]] [købte [en brugt bil]] [ i Berlin ] [ ] d. [Den gamle mand [ fra LA ]] [købte [en brugt bil]] [ ] [ i går ] e. [Den gamle mand [ fra LA ]] [købte [en brugt bil]] [ ] [ ] (2 deletions) f. [Den gamle mand [ ]] [købte [en brugt bil]] [ ] [ i går ] (2 deletions) g. * [Den gamle [ LA ]] [købte [en brugt bil]] [ i Berlin ] [ i går ] As illustrated in (41)e-f, deletion is not the most reliable test since it can be applied more than once (to different constituents).

(39) En. The man from LA bought what in Berlin ? (40) Da. Manden fra LA købte hvad i Berlin ?


2. Clause structure in tree analyses and in field analyses A fundamental difference between various approaches to clause structure is the one between

• tree analyses like the generative analysis that I work in and also teach (Vikner 1995, 1999a,b, 2007, ..., Haegeman & Guéron 1999) and

• field analyses like the sætningsskema analysis of Danish of Diderichsen (1946, 1964) and many others or the topologische Modell analysis of German of Drach (1937) and many others.

The difference is to which extent the parts of the clause are seen as boxes inside other boxes or as pearls after each other on a string. It is a question of extent, as the extent can neither be 0% or 100%: Even to Diderichsen (1946), not all constituents follow each other (e.g. the object is inside the content field), and also in the generative analyses constituents may follow one another (otherwise trees would only contain mothers and daughters and no sisters). In (43), the two different analysis of Danish are shown, and in (44) the same for German: (43) a.

b. F Nexus field Content field

F v n a V N A

Nu har Per igen poleret bilen med ståluld

Now has Per again polished car-the with steel wool

c. Conj. f. Nexus field Content field

k n a v V N A

om Per igen har poleret bilen med ståluld

if Per again has polished car-the with steel wool

CP

C'

C° IP

I'

I°

Spec

Spec

VP

V'

V°

VP

AdvP

Spec

VP

AdvP VP

V'

V°

Spec

DP


The generative tree structure in (43)a is compared to the simplified Diderichsen field model of constituent order in modern Danish, Norwegian and Swedish, as illustrated in (43)b for main clauses and in (43)c for embedded clauses.

Collapsing the Diderichsen model for the main clause with the one for the embedded clause, as in (43)b,c, was not done by Diderichsen himself but by Platzack (1985:71, fn 5) and Heltoft (1986:108). For more details and more references, see Bjerre, Engels, Jørgensen & Vikner (2008). By the way, notice that the difference in (43), between tree analysis and field analysis is NOT one of notation. (43)a can also be expressed by means of boxes or square brackets, and (43)b,c can also be illustrated in a tree.

One difference is that in (43)b,c the number of levels and the kinds of constituents that can occur on each level are fixed: There are three levels containing three different kinds of constituents, namely clause – fields – slots / sætning – felter – pladser. In (43)a, on the other hand, this is not the case at all. Another difference is that (43)a is based on constituents, as supported by constituency tests, cf. section 1.2. In (43)b,c, however, this is not always the case, as constituency tests will show e.g. that part of V may form a constituent together with N. Although I thus clearly prefer a tree analysis along the lines of (43)a, I shall nevertheless try to develop a field based model more like (43)b,c, in section 3 below, primarily for pedagogical reasons. In (44), there is a parallel illustration for German, first a generative tree structure in (44)a and then the simplified field model / topological model analyses of German main and embedded clauses in (44)b,c. For more details and more references, see Wöllstein-Leisten, Heilmann, Stepan & Vikner (1997) or any of the recent editions of the Duden grammars (e.g. Fabricius-Hansen et al. 2005:879). (44) a.

Vorfeld Linke

Satzklammer Mittelfeld Rechte

Satzklammer Nachfeld

b. Vielleicht Perhaps

hat has

Peter nie ein Auto Peter never a car

poliert polished

c. ob if

Peter nie ein Auto Peter never a car

poliert hat polished has

CP

C'

C° IP

I'

I°

Spec

Spec

VP

V'

V°

VP

AdvP

Spec

VP

V'

V°

Spec

DP


3. Another field analysis (but with a comparative touch)

3.1 Introduction I would like to suggest two basic clause structures, one for Danish and one for English: (45) Danish:

(46) English:

The intended meaning of "basic clause structure" is that I want to be able to derive from (45) and (46) all clause types that are actually possible in the two languages. At this point the parallels are hopefully conspicuous, even though two differences are also noticeable:

• Danish: "finite verb" - English: "finite aux" • Danish: only one "finite verb" circle - English: two "finite aux" circles

The three superimposed verb-circles and adv-boxes indicate that there can be one or more verbs or adverbials after one another here (in both languages, section 3.4.2). The two superimposed object-boxes indicate that there can be one or two objects here (in both languages, section 3.4.1). A circle denotes a position for a head ("en kerne"), i.e. (at most) an individual word, whereas a box denotes a position for an entire phrase ("et syntagme"). (47) a. heads: vil, spiser, spise, spist will, eats, eat, eaten

b. phrases: mange elever, tomaten, med en gaffel many pupils, the tomato, with a fork (Actually, every phrase contains a head – e.g. with is the head of the phrase with a fork – but the heads and phrases in (45) and (46) are the ones relevant for the word order differences that I want to address.) Something else that I retain from the generative framework that I otherwise work within (Vikner 1995, 1999ab, 2007) is the metaphor of "syntactic movement", indicated by the arrows in (45) and (46). The movement is why there can only be a finite verb in one of the verb circles (the finite verb moves from one circle to the next). There are, however, also other types of movement than verb movement.

3.2 Danish in detail The structure suggested for Danish in (45) is reminiscent of the very influential suggestions of Diderichsen (1946, 1964, cf. also Bjerre et al. 2008). Compare (48) with the first line in (49):

verb(s) object(s) finite aux

topic finite aux

subject neg / adv adv

finite verb

topic subject neg / adv verb(s) object(s) adv


(48) Foundation field Nexus field Content field

F v n a V N A Saa har han vist glemt Galocherne her

Then has he probably forgotten the galoshes here from Diderichsen (1946:162)

(49) Danish: F v n a V N A

Derfor havde han ikke spist æblet i går

a. must be filled in all main clauses.

b. must be filled in all main clauses.

c. must contain a subject (unless there is one in topic box).

e. may contain ikke and/ or medial sentential adverbials

f. may contain one or more verbs.

g. may contain one or two objects (or a subject predicate) (or obj. plus obj. predicate)

h. may contain one or more adverbials.

Danish ≠ English Danish = English

3.3 English in detail (50) English:

Therefore he had not eaten the apple yesterday

a. does not have to be filled.

b. must be filled if topic is a wh- or a negative element. If no aux, use do.

c. must contain a subject.

d. must be filled if there is an aux or a not. If no aux, use do.

e. may contain not and/or medial sentential adverbials

f. may contain one or more verbs.

g. may contain one or two objects (or a subject predicate) (or obj. plus obj. predicate)

h. may contain one or more adverbials.

Danish ≠ English Danish = English


topic finite aux


finite verb



3.4 Common properties Danish/English

3.4.1 Options in the object box(es) Danish and English both have the following five different options regarding the object box(es) (i.e. they both have the following five verb complementation patterns): (51) Da.

En.

no object

a. Hvorfor skal han rejse i dag? b. Why must he leave today?

one object

c. Hvorfor skal jeg læse bogen i dag? d. Why must I read the book today?

two objects

e. Hvorfor havde hun lånt Ib bilen i går? f. Why had she leant Joe the car yesterday?

a subject predicate

g. Hvorfor skal vi være flinke i dag? h. Why must we be nice today?

an object and an object predicate

i. Hvorfor havde de kaldt Ida et fjols i går? j. Why had they called Ann a fool yesterday?

finite verb



topic finite aux



3.4.2 Options in the verb cirle(s) Danish and English both have the following five different options regarding the verb circle(s): (52) Da.

En.

no verb in the verb circle

a. Hvor er Peter i dag? b. Where is Peter today?

one verb in the verb circle

c. Hvor havde Peter egentlig efterladt bilen i fredags? d. Where had Peter actually left the car last Friday?

two verbs in the verb circle

e. Hvorfor skulle Peter have købt

en ny bil i går?

f. Why should Peter have bought

a new car yesterday?

three verbs in the verb circle

g. Hvordan kan bilen være blevet repareret

allerede?

h. How can the car have been repaired

already?

four verbs in the verb circle

i. Hvordan burde ulykken kunne have været undgået?

j. Why must the car have been being repaired

at 3:15 PM yesterday?

finite verb



topic finite aux



3.5 Differences Danish/English

3.5.1 Main vs. embedded clauses in general In Danish, both the finite verb circle and the topic box must be filled in main clauses (b-d), but not in embedded clauses (a): (53) Da.

a. fordi Peter aldrig drikker urtete

b. Peter drikker aldrig urtete c. Urtete drikker Peter aldrig d. Måske drikker Peter aldrig urtete e. Drikker Peter aldrig urtete?

This property, that both the finite verb circle and the topic box must be filled in main clauses, is often referred to as "verb second", as the finite verb must be in second position in all main clauses. Verb second is a property common to all Germanic languages, with just one exception: English. (Notice that in main clause yes/no-questions, (e), the topic box remains empty. The same actually goes for English, once the complications concerning questions to be discussed in the next subsection have been factored in.) The arrow in (53) indicates "movement" of the finite verb from the verb circle to the finite verb circle. This is just one possible way of representing the observation that the finite verb drikker either occurs in the verb circle, (a), or in the finite verb circle (b-e), but never in both.

Similar arrows could have been drawn from the subject box to the topic box, to represent the difference between (a) and (b), or from the object box to the topic box, to represent the difference between (a) and (c). In English, the topic box does not have to be filled in main clauses, and nor does the first finite aux circle. The result is that the differences between main and embedded clauses are much less striking: (54) En.

a. as Peter never drinks herbal tea

b. Peter never drinks herbal tea c. Herbal tea Peter never drinks d. Maybe Peter never drinks herbal tea


topic finite aux


finite verb



3.5.2 Topics containing a question element or a negative element The first finite aux circle in English is only filled if topic is a question element or a negative element, whereas there is no such restriction in Danish: (55) En.

a. When had Peter seen this mess? b. Never had Peter seen such a mess c. Perhaps Peter had seen such a mess before

(56) Da.

a. Hvornår havde Peter set det her rod? b. Aldrig havde Peter set sådan et rod c. Måske havde Peter set sådan et rod før

(The property that the first finite aux circle in English is filled if topic is a question element is also found in French.) Danish and English have in common that the first finite circle is only filled in main clause questions, and not in embedded questions: (57) En.

a. (I asked)

when Peter had seen this mess

(58) Da.

a. (Jeg spurgte)

hvornår Peter havde set det her rod?

(If the finite verb is not in the first verb circle, then it must be in another one. The different placements of had vs. havde in (57) & (58) will be discussed in the next two subsections.)

finite verb



topic finite aux


finite verb



topic finite aux



3.5.3 Finite verb circle vs. finite aux circle When the topic is a question element or a negative element, then the first finite aux circle must be filled in English. Furthermore, as it is a finite aux circle, then it has to be filled by an auxiliary. If there is no auxiliary, then one has to be inserted, namely do: (59) En.

a. Where did Peter finally find a new car? b. At no

point did Peter actually leave the room

c. In York Peter finally found a new car d. Yesterday Peter finally found a new car

The first finite aux circle in English corresponds to the finite verb circle in Danish, and as it is a finite verb circle, any finite verb can occur here (of course including auxiliaries). Therefore Danish has nothing that corresponds to do-insertion: (60) Da.

a. Hvor fandt Peter endelig en ny bil? b. På intet

tidspunkt forlod Peter faktisk lokalet

c. I Århus fandt Peter endelig en ny bil d. I går fandt Peter endelig en ny bil

finite verb



topic finite aux



3.5.4 There is no second finite circle in Danish In Danish, there is only one finite verb circle. The finite verb either occurs in the verb circle(s), in all embedded clauses, (a-b), or in the finite verb circle, in all main clauses, (c-f) (cf. section 3.5.1 above): (61) Da.

a. fordi antallet formentlig stiger hvert år b. fordi antallet formentlig vil stige næste år c. Derfor stiger antallet formentlig hvert år d. Derfor vil antallet formentlig stige næste år e. Hvorfor stiger antallet formentlig hvert år? f. Hvorfor vil antallet formentlig stige næste år?

In English, on the other hand, there are two finite aux circles. A finite main verb has to occur in the verb circle(s), (a,c,e), as the two circles further left only admit auxiliaries. A finite auxiliary either occurs in the second finite aux circle, (b,d) or in the first one, (e), depending on what is in the topic box (cf. sections 3.5.2 & 3.5.3 above): (62) En.

a. as the number presumably increases every year b. as the number will presumably increase next year c. Therefore the number presumably increases every year d. Therefore the number will presumably increase next year e. Why does the number presumably increase every year? f. Why will the number presumably increase next year?

In other words, here we have a difference between the languages in the second half of the diagramme, which is the part where I said that the two languages are alike (cf. sections 3.2 & 3.3 above): In both languages the verb circle(s) contains all non-finite verbs, but in English it also contains finite main verbs, whereas in Danish, it also contains the finite verb in all embedded clauses. This difference in the verb circle(s) does however follow completely from the differences in the first half of the diagramme, concerning the finite circles (cf. sections 3.5.1-3.5.3 above).


topic finite aux


finite verb



3.5.5 not can trigger do-insertion, ikke cannot In English, not requires an auxiliary, (a,c), as opposed to e.g. never, (d). As above, if there is no auxiliary, then one is inserted, namely do, (c): (63) En.

a. Therefore the number will not increase next year b. Therefore the number will never increase again c. Therefore the number did not increase last year d. Therefore the number never increased again

In Danish, neither ikke nor aldrig requires an auxiliary, (c,d): (64) Da.

a. Derfor vil antallet ikke stige næste år b. Derfor vil antallet aldrig stige igen c. Derfor steg antallet ikke sidste år d. Derfor steg antallet aldrig igen

finite verb



topic finite aux



3.6 Concluding remarks Compared to the descriptions of Danish-English differences found in most Danish gymnasium (and higher) level grammars of English, the analysis set out in (45) and (46) above is more complicated in that it introduced both a topic position and a set of finite verb positions for both languages. On the plus side, I would like to claim that all (and only) the different possible clauses that are possible in the two languages can be derived from (45) and (46). Consider as an example how the various possible sequences of verbs and adverbials follow (more or less) straightforwardly, without having to resort to setting out rules for Danish which are misleading and which have to be revised or qualified one or two pages later: På engelsk må et adverbium ikke placeres mellem et verbum og dets objekt, i modsætning til dansk

(Herskind & Pedersen 2002:36) Lette adverbialled placeres ofte umiddelbart foran hovedverbet (på dansk er placeringen efter hovedverbet). (Ljung & Ohlander 1996:165) Both of these formulations would incorrectly allow for e.g.

However, as follows from the analysis above (section 3.5.1), this order is only possible if two conditions obtain, namely that the main verb has to be finite and that the clause has to be a main clause: (66) Da. a. Peter reparerede faktisk bilen i går MAIN V ADV OBJ b. Derfor reparerede Peter faktisk bilen i går MAIN V ADV OBJ At this point, I should also admit that for certain phenomena, further assumptions are needed that I have not been able to discuss here, e.g. • light negation in English (Why didn't Peter leave?) • light objects in Danish (Peter så ham ikke) • negative objects in Danish (Peter havde ingen penge fået) • verb particles in both languages (Jeg smed bogen ud, I threw out the book, I threw the book out). Another potential advantage that I have not discussed in any detail is the compatibility with analyses of other related languages, e.g. French, German and Icelandic (cf. Almen Sprogforståelse): • French and Icelandic have two finite circles like English, but finite verb circles like Danish. • Icelandic has obligatory filling of topic and first finite verb circle in main clauses, French does not. • German would be much like Danish, but with the verb circle(s) at the very end.

(cf. e.g.Vikner 1999b, Wöllstein-Leisten & al. 1997).

(65) Da. a. * Peter havde repareret faktisk bilen i går MAIN V ADV OBJ b. * ... fordi Peter reparerede faktisk bilen i går MAIN V ADV OBJ


References Bjerre, Tavs, Eva Engels, Henrik Jørgensen & Sten Vikner: 2008, "Points of convergence between

functional and formal approaches to syntactic analysis" in Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 82, 131-166. <www.hum.au.dk/engelsk/engsv/papers/bjer08a.pdf>

Davidsen-Nielsen, Niels & Peter Harder: 2000, "Constituent order in English and Danish", Copenhagen Studies in Language 25, 39-71.

Diderichsen, Paul: 1946, Elementær Dansk Grammatik, Gyldendal, Copenhagen. 3rd edition 1962, Reprinted 1984.

Diderichsen, Paul: 1964, "Sætningsleddene og deres stilling - tredive år efter" in Danica, Studier i dansk sprog til Aage Hansen 3. september 1964. Reprinted in Diderichsen (1966:364-379).

Diderichsen, Paul: 1966, Helhed og Struktur, G.E.C. Gads Forlag, Copenhagen. Drach, Erich: 1937, Grundgedanken der deutschen Satzlehre, Diesterweg, Frankfurt am Main.

Reprinted 1963, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine, Peter Gallmann, Peter Eisenberg, Reinhard Fiehler, Jörg Peters, Damaris

Nübling, Irmhild Barz, & Thomas A. Fritz. 2005. Grammatik der deutschen Gegenwartssprache, Duden vol. 4, 7th edition, Bibliographisches Institut, Mannheim.

Greenbaum, Sidney: 1996, The Oxford English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Haegeman, Liliane & Jacqueline Guéron: 1999, English Grammar – A Generative Perspective.

Oxford: Blackwell. Heltoft, Lars: 1986, "Topologi og syntaks. En revision af Paul Diderichsens sætningsskema" in Lars

Heltoft & John E. Andersen (eds.), Sætningsskemaet og dets stilling - 50 år efter, Nydanske Studier og Almen Kommunikationsteori, NyS 16/17, 105-130.

Herskind, Aase & Uffe Gravers Pedersen: 2002, Engelsk Grammatik med Synonymer, Gyldendal, Copenhagen (3rd edition).

Hjulmand, Lise-Lotte & Helge Schwarz. 2009. A concise contrastive grammar of English for Danish students. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.

Ljung, Magnus & Sölve Ohlander: 1996, The Grammar, trsl. Katalin Tersztyánsky & Lone Thomsen, Gyldendal, Copenhagen.

Platzack, Christer: 1985, "A Survey of Generative Analyses of the Verb Second Phenomenon in Germanic" in Nordic Journal of Linguistics 8.1, 49-73.

Vikner, Sten: 1995, Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic Languages,: Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Vikner, Sten: 1999a, "Ledstillingen i dansk og government & binding" in Per Anker Jensen & Peter Skadhauge (eds.), Sætningsskemaet i generativ lingvistik, pp. 83-110. Institut for Erhvervssproglig Informatik og Kommunikation, Syddansk Universitet, Kolding. <www.hum.au.dk/engelsk/engsv/papers/vikn99a.pdf>

Vikner, Sten: 1999b, "V°-til-I° flytning og personfleksion i alle tempora" in Islenskt mál 19, 81-128. <www.hum.au.dk/engelsk/engsv/papers/vikn99b.pdf> .

Vikner, Sten: 2007, "Teoretisk og komparativ syntaks" in Henrik Jørgensen & Peter Widell (eds.), Det bedre argument - Festskrift til Ole Togeby, 7. marts 2007, Wessel & Huitfeld, Århus, pp. 469-480. <www.hum.au.dk/engelsk/engsv/papers/vikn07a.pdf>

Wöllstein-Leisten, Angelika, Axel Heilmann, Peter Stepan, & Sten Vikner: 1997, Deutsche Satzstruktur, Stauffenburg, Tübingen.


Appendix: The British National Corpus This demonstration will find examples of the verb visit, to illustrate a task where students have to find out whether a given verb is intransitive or intransitive and whether it takes more than one object and what type of object that might be. The idea is that students use the corpus to find "real life" examples instead of inventing them or looking in dictionaries. We often use corpora in our own research, and not only (but also) when people question whether native speakers "really" do use a particular syntactic structure. Go to http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/, which is the Brigham Young University interface with the British National Corpus (BNC). (You should register to use the web site, as only 10-15 searches are possible without registration. Registration is free, however, and it does not generate spam.)

There is a box right under "search string", top left of the main page, into which you can type your search. Type in visit and press the search button (or just press "enter"). The result is that there are 12327 examples of the word visit in the corpus. (To see the result of a particular search, you may have to click the word you searched. The result is at first only seen in the lower right corner of the browser window, but when you move the cursor there, it grows and takes up most of the window. To get it back to its original size, move the cursor to the left edge of the window.)


Now scroll down and look at the examples. You could invite the students to notice that many of the examples are of a noun rather than a verb. E.g.:

CH1 W_newsp_tabloid A panic-stricken Julie immediately cancelled a planned visit to the Cannes Film Festival ...

In order to find only verbal examples of visit, you need to restrict your search to the appropriate word class. Click on the question mark immediately right of the search box to get more information (this gets you to the same page as http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/help/syntax_e.asp). The first three search types under "Combinations of preceding" (which is the second heading) are relevant. The best search type is the third, which will tell you to enter e.g.

[visit].[v*] and this will get you the choice between five different searches, of the five verbal forms visit, visited, visiting, visits, and visitin'. Now click one of these five forms to see the search result. Once you have a list of results, clicking on the reference letters/numbers to the left of the example will reveal more of the context, and also the source of the example. Students will need to do this, both in order to be able to copy and paste the example (you can not copy in the lists themselves) and to be able to copy and paste the source information. (It is often interesting to note whether the example is from spoken or written language, or from formal or informal language, etc. You could also show them that it is possible to specify text types on the left edge, ranging from sermons, S_sermon, to e-mails, W_email.)

The following shows three relevant examples of visit in the required format, with the verb itself underlined and in bold and with the subcategorised elements (i.e. the objects) underlined. It also includes source information. We should not be too critical regarding the formatting of the source information, since the BNC itself is not always consistent.

The doctor had visited the man earlier in the day (BNC: A classic English crime. Heald, Tim. London: Pavilion Books Ltd, 1990.) Only 55 per cent of registered voters visited the ballot box in June 1987. (BNC: Daily Telegraph, elect. edn. of 1992-04-04.) Actually I visited somebody the other day. (BNC: 15 conversations recorded by `Frederick' (PS0A8) between 10 and 15 Jan 1992 with 10 informants)

Notes and hints for students: • Although the BNC contains 100 million words, it is still a finite language sample (of British

usage) and all the possibilities that exist in the language need not be represented. You are therefore welcome to give your own example sentences illustrating points that cannot be found in the BNC.

• The word class tagging has been done automatically; the corpus is not foolproof and the computer won't think for you.


The same website at Brigham Young University uses the same kind of interface to the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) as well as a Spanish and a Portuguese corpus. See the various corpora and their sizes under http://corpus.byu.edu/ Similar public corpora for Danish and German are available under http://ordnet.dk/korpusdk and http://www.ids-mannheim.de/cosmas2-web/ respectively.

Finally, here are the two syntax books we use here:

pages 11-20 below are replaced part ii the sentence … · vikner: the sentence structure of...

Documents