Article published in:Finiteness Matters: On finiteness-related phenomena in natural languages
Edited by Kristin Melum Eide
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 231] 2016
► pp. 121–168
Finiteness, inflection, and the syntax your morphology can afford
In this paper English and Norwegian are compared with respect to a range of syntactic constructions (negated clauses, negative inversion, polarity questions, declaratives, subjunctives, why-not- constructions and infinitives). The paper also discusses preterit-participle mix-ups in English and relates these to the behaviour of main verbs in the investigated constructions. It is argued that in both languages these constructions require either an explicitly encoded finiteness feature, or, for the second set of constructions, the explicitly encoded absence of such a feature. English auxiliaries and main verbs differ in their respective feature specifications as regards finiteness, hence main verbs are banned from many of the positions where auxiliaries appear, and vice versa. English main verbs are bereft of a productive morphologically expressed finiteness distinction (except for in a few, but frequent irregular main verbs distinguishing preterits from participles), whereas auxiliaries have and be exhibit full paradigms of finite and non-finite forms. The modals and auxiliary do, on the other hand, exist only as finite forms and are hence banned from positions where non-finiteness is explicitly required by a given syntactic operation or construction. Hence, the finiteness feature is unevenly distributed across verbs and auxiliaries in English, but evenly distributed in all verbal categories in Norwegian, where all main verbs, modals and auxiliaries have full paradigms of finite and non-finite forms. This state of events, it is claimed, gives rise to the observed parametric variation between the Norwegian and English verbal systems.
Keywords: auxiliaries, do-support, English, Norwegian, Old English, participle levelling, Rich Agreement Hypothesis, verbs
Published online: 25 August 2016
Askedal, Jon Ole
Baker, Carl Lee
1991 Morphology after Syntax: Pronominal Clitics in Romance Languages. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Cormack, Anabel & Smith, Neil
Dresher, Bezalel Elan
Eide, Kristin Melum
2002a Norwegian Modals. PhD dissertation, NTNU.
Faarlund, Jan Terje, Lie, Svein & Vannebo, Kjell Ivar
Glahn, Esther, Håkansson, Gisela, Hammarberg, Bjørn, Holmen, Anne, Hvenekilde, Anne, & Lund, Karen
Gretsch, Petra & Perdue, Clive
Guéron, Jacqueline & Hoekstra, Teun
Hagen, Jon Erik
Haegeman, Liliane & Guéron, Jacqueline
Halle, Moritz & Marantz, Alec
Hasselgård, Hilde, Johansson, Stig & Lysvåg, Per
Holmberg, Anders & Platzack, Christer
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan
1999 Faithfulness and identity in prosodic morphology. In The Prosody Morphology Interface, René Kager, Harry van der Hulst & Wim Zonneveld (eds), 218–309. Cambridge:CUP. Downloaded ROA: http://roa.rutgers.edu/files/216-0997/216-0997MCCARTHY-0-0.PDF> DOI:
Muysken, Pieter & Law, Paul
Næss, Stine M.
Platzack, Christer & Rosengren, Inger
Reuland, Eric & Reinhart, Tania
Ritter, Elizabeth & Wiltschko, Martina
2005 Anchoring Events to Utterances without Tense. WCFLL 2005 <http://www.linguistics.ubc.ca/People/martina/papers/wccfl_ritter_wiltschko.pdf
Rohrbacher, Bernhard Wolfgang
Ross, John R.
Schütze, Carson T.
Sigurðsson, Halldór Á.
Trudgill Peter & Chambers, Jack K.
Warner, Anthony R.
Wik, Marte Aakre
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa
1982 On the Relationship of the Lexicon to Syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Cited by 4 other publications
Johannessen, Janne Bondi
Ritz, Marie-Eve & Sophie L.R. Richard
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 october 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.