Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T12:36:31.068Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Long object shift and reflexives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 April 2010

Fredrik Heinat
Fredrik Heinat*
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University, S-106 91, Stockholm, Sweden. [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

This short communication is concerned with long object shift of reflexives in Swedish. Only 3rd person reflexives can shift across their antecedent. For some reason this is possible even if the antecedent is 1st or 2nd person as well, but certain requirements on the antecedent are necessary. This paper shows that neither a purely syntactic nor a purely semantic analysis can account for all the facts. Instead the best analysis seems to be one that makes use of Bonet's (1995) post-syntactic morphological processes: feature delinking, feature erasure and feature insertion.

Keywords

bindingmorphologyobject shiftpronounsreflexivesSwedish
Type
Short Communications
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , May 2010 , pp. 67 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © Nordic Association of Linguistics 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bobaljik, Jonathan & Jonas, Dianne. 1996. Subject positions and the role of TP. Linguistic Inquiry 37 195–236.Google Scholar
Bonet, Eulalia. 1995. Feature structure of Romance clitics. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 13 607–647.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna & Starke, Michal. 1999. The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns. In van Riemsdijk, Henk (ed.), Clitics in the Languages of Europe, 145–233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. & Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinat, Fredrik. 2005. A note on long object shift. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 76 135–142.Google Scholar
Heinat, Fredrik. 2006. Probes, Pronouns and Binding in the Minimalist Program. Ph.D. dissertation, Lund University.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 1986. Word Order and Syntactic Features in the Scandinavian Languages and English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 1991. The distribution of Scandinavian weak pronouns. In van Riemsdijk, Henk & Rizzi, Luigi (eds.), Clitics and their hosts (ESFEUROTYPE Working Papers 2), 155–174.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 1999. Remarks on Holmberg's Generalisation. Studia Linguistica 53 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Josefsson, Gunlög. 1992. Object shift and weak pronominals in Swedish. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 49 59–94.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelica. 1998. More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses. In Strolovich, Devon & Lawson, Aaron (eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory VIII, 92–110. Ithaca NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Nevins, Andrew. 2007. The representation of third person and its consequences for person–case effects. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25 273–313.Google Scholar
Reuland, Eric. 2001. Primitives of binding. Linguistic Inquiry 32 439–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stechow, Arnim von. 2003. Feature deletion under semantic binding: Tense, person, and mood under verbal quantifiers. NELS 33. http://www2.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~arnim10/Aufsaetze/vonstech.pdf (14 February 2010).Google Scholar
Teleman, Ulf, Hellberg, Staffan & Andersson, Erik. 1999. Svenska akademiens grammatik. Stockholm: Norstedts Ordbok.Google Scholar
Vikner, Sten. 2005. Object shift. In Everaert, Matin & van Riemsdijk, Henk (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, vol. 3, 392–436 (chapter 46). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar