Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T08:20:06.572Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Freezing effects and objects1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 March 2010

TERJE LOHNDAL
TERJE LOHNDAL*
Affiliation:
University of Maryland
*
Author's address: Department of Linguistics, University of Maryland, 1401 Marie Mount Hall, College Park, MD20742, USAterje@umd.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper is an investigation of freezing effects, that is, cases where an element (e.g. an object or a subject, or an element within it) is unable to move from a certain structural position. An account of the most prominent properties of freezing in Norwegian is followed by a comparative study of primarily English and Norwegian indirect objects, with important consequences for the general approach to indirect objects. Although recent analyses capture central properties of indirect objects, they fall short of accounting for freezing properties, seen here in terms of agreement properties, most notably Case agreement. It is shown that both subjects and indirect objects disallow sub-extraction in both English and Norwegian; however, unlike English, Norwegian allows the indirect object to A-bar move. This relates to the question of whether Case is structural or inherent. As such, this paper offers a new argument in favor of Case as a central ingredient in deriving freezing effects.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 163 - 199
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 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.)

Footnotes

[1]

Parts of this paper have been presented at the NORMS Grand Meeting in Iceland in August 2007 and at the Syntax Brown Bag at New York University in December 2009, and I am grateful to the audiences for valuable comments. Thanks also to Željko Bošković, Noam Chomsky, Alex Drummond, Ángel Gallego, Elly van Gelderen, Marc Richards, Luigi Rizzi, Bridget Samuels, and two anonymous JL referees. Thanks are also due to Cedric Boeckx for his support and constructive suggestions, and especially to Caroline Heycock, Norbert Hornstein, Howard Lasnik and Juan Uriagereka for all their valuable comments and for ensuring that my writing is much clearer than it would otherwise have been.

References

REFERENCES

Abels, Klaus. 2008. Towards a restrictive theory of (remnant) movement. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 7, 53–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Åfarli, Tor A. 1992. The syntax of Norwegian passive constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The syntax of ditransitives: Evidence from clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gryter.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1996. On the structural position of themes and goals. In Rooryck, Johan & Zaring, Laurie (eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon, 7–34. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1997. Thematic roles and syntactic structure. In Haegeman, Liliane (ed.), Elements of grammar, 73–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. & Collins, Chris. 2006. Linkers and the internal structure of vP. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 24, 307–354.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C., Johnson, Kyle & Roberts, Ian. 1989. Passive arguments raised. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 219–251.Google Scholar
Baltin, Mark. 2001. A-movement. In Baltin, Mark & Collins, Chris (eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, 226–254. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentzen, Kristine. 2007. Order and structure in embedded clauses in Northern Norwegian. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Bittner, Maria & Hale, Ken. 1996. The structural determination of case and agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 27, 1–68.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric. 2003. Islands and chains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric. 2007. Understanding Minimalist syntax. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric. 2008a. Aspects of the syntax of agreement. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric. 2008b. Islands. Language and Linguistics Compass 2, 151–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric. 2008c. Bare Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2007. On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: An even more minimal theory. Linguistic Inquiry 38, 589–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1977. Variables in the theory of transformation. In Culicover, Peter W., Wasow, Thomas & Akmajian, Adrian (eds.), Formal syntax, 157–196. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans. 2005. Extraction from subjects: Some remarks on Chomsky's ‘On phases’. In Broekhuis, Hans, Corver, Norbert, Huybregts, Riny, Kleinhenz, Ursula & Koster, Jan (eds.), Organizing grammar: Studies in honor of Henk van Riemsdijk, 59–68. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1955/1975. The logical structure of linguistic theory. Ms., Harvard University. [Published 1975, Plenum.]Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In Anderson, Stephen R. & Kiparsky, Paul (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, 232–286. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquires. In Martin, Roger, Michaels, David & Uriagereka, Juan (eds.), Step by step: Essays on Minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36, 1–22.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2007. Approaching UG from below. In Gärtner, & Sauerland, (eds.), 1–30.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Freidin, Robert, Otero, Carlos P. & Zubizaretta, Maria-Luisa (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Lasnik, Howard. 1977. Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 425–504.Google Scholar
Citko, Barbara. 2009. Symmetry in syntax? Symmetric merge, symmetric move, and symmetric labels. Ms., University of Washington.Google Scholar
Citko, Barbara. In press. A (new) look at symmetric and asymmetric passives. NELS 38. Amherst, MA: GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. 1992. The adverb effect: Evidence against ECP accounts of the that-trace effect. NELS 23, 97–111. Amherst, MA: GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. & Wexler, Kenneth. 1973. An application of the Freezing Principle to the Dative in English. Social Sciences Working Papers 39, 1–29. Irvine, CA: University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
Czepluch, Hartmut. 1982. Case Theory and the Dative construction. The Linguistic Review 2, 1–38.Google Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 1995. Particles: On the syntax of verb–particle, triadic and causative. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Engdahl, Elisabet. 1982. Restrictions on unbounded dependencies in Scandinavian. In Engdahl, Elisabet & Ejerhed, Eva (eds.), Readings on unbounded dependencies in Scandinavian languages, 151–174. Umeå: Almquist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Etxepare, Ricardo & Ortiz de Urbina, Jon. 2003. In Hualde, José Ignacio & Ortiz de Urbina, Jon (eds.), A grammar of Basque, 494–516. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert. 2001. Features, θ-roles, and free constituent order. Linguistic Inquiry 32, 405–437.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1965. Indirect Object construction in English and the ordering of transformations. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Fortuny, Jordi. 2008. The emergence of order in syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fukui, Naoki. 2006. Theoretical comparative syntax: Studies in macroparameters. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gallego, Ángel J. 2007. Phase theory and parametric variation. Ph.D. dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Gallego, Ángel J. & Uriagereka, Juan. 2007. Conditions on sub-extraction. In Eguren, Luis & Fernández Soriano, Olga (eds.), Coreference, modality, and focus, 45–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gärtner, Hans M. & Sauerland, Uli (eds.). 2007. Interfaces+Recursion=Language? Chomsky's Minimalism and the view from syntax–semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1992. Theory and description in generative syntax: A case study in West-Flemish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane & Lohndal, Terje. 2010. Negative Concord and (multiple) Agree: A case study of West Flemish. Linguistic Inquiry 41.2, 181–211.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane & Koppen, Marjo van. 2009. The non-existence of a ϕ-feature dependency between C and T. Presented at NELS 40, MIT.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 1995. Subjects, events and licensing. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2002. Possession and the double object construction. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2, 31–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2008. The ‘Latinate’ ban on dative shift in English: A morphosyntactic explanation. Plenary paper at the 14th Germanic Linguistics Annual Conference, Madison, 3 May.Google Scholar
Huang, James C.-T. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray & Culicover, Peter W.. 1971. A reconsideration of dative movements. Foundations of Language 7, 397–412.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1986. Passive. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 593–599.Google Scholar
Jeong, Youngmi. 2007. Applicatives: Structure and interpretation from a minimalist perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Julien, Marit. 2007. Embedded V2 in Norwegian and Swedish. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 80, 103–161.Google Scholar
Jurka, Johannes. 2009. Gradient acceptability and subject islands in German. Ms., University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1980. Extensions of binding and case-marking. Linguistic Inquiry 11, 75–96.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1984. Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda. 2006. Agreement configurations: In defense of ‘Spec head’. In Boeckx, Cedric (ed.), Agreement systems, 159–199. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Laka, Itziar & Uriagereka, Juan. 1987. Barriers for Basque and vice-versa. NELS 17, 394–408. Amherst, MA: GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 335–391.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 1999. Minimalist analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 2001. Subjects, objects, and the EPP. In Davies, William D. & Dubinsky, Stanley (eds.), Objects and other subjects: Grammatical functions, functional categories, and configurationality, 103–121. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 2003. Minimalist investigations in syntactic theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 2008. On the development of Case Theory: Triumphs and challenges. In Freidin, Robert, Otero, Carlos P. & Zubizarreta, Maria-Luisa (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 17–41. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard & Park, Myung-Kwan. 2003. The EPP and the subject condition under sluicing. Linguistic Inquiry 34, 649–660.Google Scholar
Legate, Julie Anne. 2008. Morphological and abstract case. Linguistic Inquiry 39, 55–101.Google Scholar
Li, Yen-Hui Audrey. 1985. Abstract case in Mandarin Chinese. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Li, Yen-Hui Audrey. 1990. Order and constituency in Mandarin Chinese. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Lødrup, Helge. 1999. Linking and Optimality in the Norwegian Presentational Focus construction. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 22, 205–229.Google Scholar
Lohndal, Terje. 2007a. Sub-extraction and the Freezing Effect: A case study of Scandinavian, Ms., University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Lohndal, Terje. 2007b. That-t in Scandinavian and elsewhere: Variation in the position of C. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 79, 47–73.Google Scholar
Lohndal, Terje. 2009. Comp-t effects: Variation in the position and features of C. Studia Linguistica 63, 204–232.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1993. Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions. In Mchombo, Sam (ed.), Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar, 113–150. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Mayr, Clemens. 2007. Subject–Object asymmetries and the relation between internal merge and pied-piping. Presented at Penn Linguistics Colloquium, 25 February.Google Scholar
McGinnis, Martha. 2001. Variation in the syntax of applicatives. Linguistics Variation Yearbook 1, 105–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGinnis, Martha. 2008. Applicatives. Language and Linguistics Compass 2, 1225–1245.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 1998. Incomplete category fronting. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 2010. On deriving CED effects from the PIC. Linguistic Inquiry 41, 35–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, Jairo & Thompson, Ellen. 1998. Appendix. In Uriagereka, Juan, Rhyme and reason, 497–521. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Oehrle, Richard. 1976. The grammatical status of the English dative alternations. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Ormazabal, Javier, Uriagereka, Juan & Uribe-Etxebarria, Myriam. 1994. Word-order and wh-movement: Towards a parametric account. Presented at GLOW 17, Vienna.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero Syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David & Torrego, Esther. 2001. T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 355–426. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David & Torrego, Esther. 2004. Tense, Case, and the nature of syntactic categories. In Guéron, Jacqueline & Lecarme, Jacqueline (eds.), The syntax of time, 495–538. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002/2008. Introducing arguments. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. [Published 2008, The MIT Press.]Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 2004. Minimalist syntax: Exploring the structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Levin, Beth. 2008. The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics 44, 129–167.Google Scholar
Řezáč, Milan. 2008. Phi-agree and theta-related case. In Harbour, Daniel, Adger, David & Béjar, Susana (eds.), Phi-theory: Phi-features across modules and interfaces, 83–129. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Richards, Marc. 2007. On feature inheritance: An argument from the Phase Impenetrability Condition. Linguistic Inquiry 38, 563–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, Marc. 2008. Defective Agree, Case alternations, and the prominence of Person. In Richards, Marc & Malchukov, Andrej L. (eds.), Scales (Linguistische Arbeits Berichte, Universität Leipzig), 137–161. Leipzig: Leipzig University.Google Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 2001. Movement in language. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, Liliane (ed.), Elements of grammar: A handbook of generative syntax, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2006. On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. In Lai-Shen Cheng, Lisa & Corver, Norbert (eds.), Wh-movement: Moving on, 97–133. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi & Shlonsky, Ur. 2007. Strategies of subject extraction. In Gärtner, & Sauerland, (eds.), 115–160.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1967/1986. Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. [Published 1986 as Infinite syntax! Norwood, NJ: Ablex].Google Scholar
San Martin, Itziar & Uriagereka, Juan. 2002. Infinitival complements in Basque. In Artiagoitia, Xabier, Goenaga, Patxi & Lakarra, Joseba (eds.), Erramu Boneta: Festschrift for Rudolf P. G. De Rijk. Bilbao: Universidad del Pais Vasco.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Hálldor Á. 2004. Meaningful silence, meaningless sounds. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 4, 235–259.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Hálldor Á. 2008. Externalization: The case of C/case. Ms., Lund University.Google Scholar
Sobin, Nicholas. 1987. The variable status of Comp-trace phenomena. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 5, 33–60.Google Scholar
Sobin, Nicholas. 2002. The Comp-trace effect, the adverb effect and minimal CP. Journal of Linguistics 38, 527–560.Google Scholar
Sportiche, Dominique. 1988. A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 425–451.Google Scholar
Starke, Michal. 2001. Move dissolves into Merge: A theory of locality. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Geneva.Google Scholar
Stepanov, Arthur. 2001. Cyclic domains in syntactic theory. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Takahashi, Daiko. 1994. Minimality of movement. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa. 1984. Parameters and the effects of word order variation. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 1988. On government. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 1998. Rhyme and reason. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 1999a. Minimal restrictions on Basque movements. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 17, 403–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 1999b. Multiple Spell-Out. In Epstein, Samuel David & Hornstein, Norbert (eds.), Working Minimalism, 251–282. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 2008. Syntactic anchors: On semantic structuring. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. To appear. Spellbound: Dynamical frustration and the accordion model. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vikner, Sten. 1995. Verb movement and expletive subjects in the Germanic languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Westergaard, Marit & Vangsnes, Øystein Alexander. 2005. Wh-questions, V2, and the left periphery in three Norwegian dialects. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 8, 117–158.Google Scholar
Wexler, Kenneth & Culicover, Peter W.. 1980. Formal principles of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Whitney, Rosemarie. 1982. The syntactic unity of wh-movement and complex NP-shift. Linguistic Analysis 10, 299–319.Google Scholar
Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter. 1997. Morphosyntax of verb movement: A minimalist approach to the syntax of Dutch. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar