Chapter published in:
Thetics and Categoricals
Edited by Werner Abraham, Elisabeth Leiss and Yasuhiro Fujinawa
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 262] 2020
► pp. 70–103

Presentational and related constructions in Norwegian with reference to German

| NTNU, Trondheim
| NTNU, Trondheim
This paper investigates constructions in Norwegian and German with an expletive pronoun in subject position, and for Norwegian also in object position. The discussion covers presentational, impersonal and extrapositional constructions in both languages, and in Norwegian also the ‘light reflexive’ seg in its interaction with presentationals. We relate the discussion to a parameter of theticity, whereby sentences with an expletive subject will count as thetic while sentences with a content-full NP subject will count as categorical. Also sentences with expletive object are argued to have a thetic value. Categorical sentences on their side are ranked according to a parameter of transitivity, accounting for constraints on presentational constructions in Norwegian, and seen as constituting an opposite dimension of constructional values to that of theticity.
Keywords: expletive subjects, expletive objects, transitivity, theticity, categoricity, presentationals, light reflexives
Published online: 22 July 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.262.03hel
References

References

Askedal, John Ole
1986 On ergativity in Modern Norwegian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 9: 25–45. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bach, Emmon
1986 The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy 9(1): 5–16.Google Scholar
Barwise, Jon & Perry
1983 John, Situations and Attitudes, London and Cambridge, MA MIT Press,Google Scholar
Bjerre, Anne & Bjerre, Tavs
2008b Danish there-constructions with transitive verbs. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Stefan Müller (ed.), 46–66. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Börjars, Kersti & Vincent, Nigel
2005 Position versus function in Scandinavian presentational constructions. In Proceedings of the LFG05 Conference, Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds), 54–72. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Brentano, Franz
1995 Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint, trans. by Antos C. Runcurello, D. B. Terell & Linda L. McAlister. London: Routledge. ( Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkt (1874, 1924), Sections V–IX 1973).Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan
2001 Lexical Functional Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Copestake, Ann
2002 Implementing Typed Feature Structure Grammars. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Copestake, Ann, Flickinger, Dan, Pollard, Carl & Sag, Ivan
2005 Minimal recursion semantics. Journal of Language and Computation 3: 281–332. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Creissels, Denis
2007 Impersonal and related constructions: A typological approach. http://​www​.deniscreissels​.fr​/public​/Creissels​-impers​.constr​.pdf (21 March 2020).
Creissels. Denis
2016 Transitivity, valency, and voice. Ms, European Summer School in Linguistic Typology, Porquerolles.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary
2001 Lexical Functional Grammar [Syntax and Semantics 34]. New York NY: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diderichsen, Paul
1946 Elementær dansk grammatikk. Københvn: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
Dowty, David
1991 Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67: 547–619. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Drubig, Hans Bernhard
1992 Zur Frage der grammatischen Repräsentation thetischer und kategorischer Sätze. In Informationsstruktur und Grammatik, Joachim Jacobs (ed.). Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 4: 142–195. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fenstad, Jens Erik, Halvorsen, Per-Kristian, Langholm, Tore & van Benthem, Johan
1985 Equations, Schemata and Situations: A Framework for Linguistics Semantics [Technical Report 29]. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt
2019 ‘Reflexives’ coding point of view of the subject. Presentation at SLE, Leipzig.Google Scholar
Gast, Volker & Haas, Florian
2011 On the distribution of subject properties in formulaic presentationals of Germanic and Romance. A diachronic-typological approach. In Impersonal Constructions. A Cross-linguistic Perspective [Studies in Language Companion Series 124], Andrej Malchukov & Anna Siewierska (eds), 127–166. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hellan, Lars
1986 Some core features of Norwegian syntax. Lecture, University of Tilburg.Google Scholar
1988 Anaphora in Norwegian and the Theory of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 On ‘weak’ personal pronouns in Norwegian. Presented at Workshop on Object Shift, University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
2019 Construction-based Compositional Grammar. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 128: 101–130. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hellan, Lars & Platzack, Christer
1999 Pronouns in Scandinavian languages. An overview. In Eurotyp: Clitics in the Languages of Europe 5 [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 20–5], Henk van Riemsdijk (ed.), 123–144. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hellan, Lars & Bruland, Tore
2015 A cluster of applications around a Deep Grammar. In Proceedings from The Language & Technology Conference (LTC) 2015, Zygmunt Vetulani & Joseph Mariani (eds). Poznan.Google Scholar
Hellan, Lars & Beermann, Dorothee
2019 Thetische Repräsentationen und die Präsentativkonstruktion im Norwegischen und Deutschen. In Zur übereinzelsprachlichen Architektur von Thetik und Kategorik [Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 97], Werner Abraham, Elisabeth Leiss & Shin Tanaka (eds), 43–66. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Holen, Gordana Iljic
2007 Automatic anaphora resolution for Norwegian. In 6th Discourse Anaphora and Anaphor Resolution Colloquium, DAARC 2007, Lagos, Portugal, March 29–30, Antonio Branco (ed.), 151–166 Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A.
1986 Word Order and Syntactic Features in the Scandinavian Languages and English. PhD dissertation, University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra A.
1980 Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56: 251–299. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok and Sag, Ivan
2005 English Object Extraposition: A Constraint-Based Approach. In: Müller, St. (ed) Proceedings of the HPSG05 Conference. CSLI Publications. http://​csli​-publications​.stanford​.edu/Google Scholar
Kiss, K.
(ed.) 2005 Object Shift. Special issue of Theoretical Linguistics 31(1–2).Google Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki
1972 The categorical and the thetic judgement. Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of Language 9: 153–185.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, William A.
1994 Thetic and categorical, stage and individual, weak and strong. In Proceedings of SALT 4, Mandy Harvey & Lynn Santelmann (eds), 220–229. Ithaca NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
1994 Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 71]. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lødrup, Helge
1999 Linking and optimality in the Norwegian presentational focus construction. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 22: 205–230. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000 Underspecification in Lexical Mapping Theory: The case of Norwegian existentials and resultatives. In Argument Realization, Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds), 171–188. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Marty, Anton
1918 Gesammelte Schriften, Vol. II, Part 1: Abteilung. Halle an der Saale: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Mikkelsen, Line
2002 Reanalyzing the definiteness effect: Evidence from Danish. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 69: 1–75.Google Scholar
Montague, Richard
1974 The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In Formal Philosophy, Richmond Thomason (ed.), 141–162. New Haven CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Platzack, Christer
1983 Existential sentences in English, Swedish, German and Icelandic. In Papers from the seventh Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, Fred Karlsson (ed.), 80–100. Helsinki: University of HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
Pollard, Carl & Sag, Ivan
1994 Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. and Geoffrey K. Pullum
1988 Expletive Noun Phrases in Subcategorized Positions. Linguistic Inquiry 19.4: 635–670.Google Scholar
Pütz, Herbert
1975 Über die Syntax der Pronominalform es im modernen Deutsch [Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 3]. Tübingen: Gunther Narr.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan
2004 Predicates and their Subjects. Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen
1995 “Theticity” and VS order: A case study. Sprachtypologie und Universalien-forschung STUF 48: 3–31.Google Scholar
1996 Theticity [Arbeitspapier 27 (Neue Folge)]. Köln: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, Universität zu Köln.Google Scholar
Sveen, Andreas
1996 Norwegian Impersonal Actives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. PhD dissertation, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien
1959 Éleménts de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Vikner, Sten
1995 Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic Languages. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
1997 Andreas Sveen: Norwegian impersonal actives and the unaccusative hypothesis. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift Årgang 15.Google Scholar
Zaenen, Annie, Engdahl, Elisabet & Maling, Joan
2017 Subject properties in presentational sentences in Icelandic and Swedish. In The Very Model of a Modern Linguist: In Honor of Helge Dyvik, Victoria Rosén & Koenrad De Smedt (eds). Bergen: Bergen Language and Linguistic Studies. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Åfarli, Tor.
1992 The Syntax of Norwegian Passive Constructions [Linguistik Aktuel/Linguistics Today 7]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar