Nordic Atlas of Language Structures (NALS) Journal, Vol. 1, 266­269 C opyright © K. Bentzen & B. Lundquist 2014 Licensed under a C reative C ommons Attribution 3.0 License
The Middle Field
Kristine Bentzen & Björn Lundquist
UiT The Arctic University of Norway
1. Introduction
This sec tion c overs a wide range of phenomena that are related to what we c an c all the middle
field of the c lause. We have inc luded c hapters that deal both with the plac ement of arguments
in the middle field (exc luding argument struc ture inside the verb phrase, whic h is dealt with in
the sec tion on the verb phrase, see Lundquist 2014a), and c hapters about auxiliaries and verb­
morphology. The topic of verb­plac ement is disc ussed in a separete sec tion (Bentzen 2014),
sinc e this topic is not restric ted to the middle field. Below we will briefly disc uss the major issues
in argument plac ement (sec tion 2) and verbal morphology and auxiliaries (sec tion 3).
2. Subject placement, object shift and quantifier movement
Most main c lauses in the Sc andinavian languages are subjec t­initial. However, in embedded
c lauses without verb movement in Mainland Sc andinavian, as well as in non­subjec t­initial matrix
c lauses, the position of the subjec t may interac t with the position of sentential adverbials and
negation. In Norwegian and Swedish, nominal subjec ts may either prec ede or follow adverbials
and negation, as in (1), while (unstressed) pronominal subjec ts are strongly preferred in a
position prec eding suc h elements, as in (2) (c f. e.g. Holmberg 1990, 1993, Faarlund et al. 1997,
Nilsen 1997, Teleman et al. 1999, Svenonius 2002):
(1)
Denne boka
leser {studentene} ikke {studentene} lengre.
this
book.DEF read student.DEF.PL not student.DEF.PL longer
‘The students don’t read this book anymore.’
(Nor.)
(2)
Denne boka
leser {de} ikke {*de} lengre.
this
book.DEF read they not they longer
‘They don’t read this book anymore.’
(Nor.)
In Danish, on the other hand, the only possible position for a subjec t is prec eding
adverbs/negation, regardless of whether the subjec t is a nominal or a pronominal element (c f.
eg. Holmberg 1993, Svenonius 2002). Thus, only the word orders in the a­examples above are
supposed to be possible in Danish. However, there is more variation within Mainland
Sc andinavian than this general pic ture indic ates.
Bentzen, Lundquist
The middle field
NALS Journal
267
Objec t Shift is another widely debated phenomenon in Sc andinavian syntax (see e.g.
Holmberg 1986, 1999, Holmberg & Platzac k 1995, Thráinsson 2001, Vikner 2006). The traditional
view c onc erning Objec t Shift in Mainland Sc andinavian is that weak pronominal objec ts
obligatorily shift ac ross negation, as in (3), while nominal objec ts remain in situ, as in (4).
(3)
Jeg så
{den} ikke {*den}.
I
see.PAST it
not it
‘I didn't see it.’
(Nor.)
(4)
Jeg så
{*boka} ikke {boka}.
I
see.PAST book.DEF not book.DEF
‘I didn't see it.’
(Nor.)
In c ontrast, in Ic elandic , nominal objec ts may also oc c ur in a shifted position, and suc h objec t
shift often has an interpretational effec t:
(5)
Jón las
{bókina}
aldrei {bókina}.
Jón read.PAST book.DEF.ACC never book.DEF.ACC
‘John never read the book.’
(Ic e.)
Also with respec t to Objec t Shift, several people have rec ently argued that there is muc h more
variation both within and ac ross the Sc andinavian languages (see e.g. Josefsson 2003, 2010,
Andréasson 2008, 2009, 2010, Anderssen & Bentzen 2012).
Three c hapters in this sec tion address the plac ement of subjec ts and objec ts with respec t
to negation and sentenc e adverbials based on the material from the Sc andinavian dialec t syntax
investigations:
1. Subjec t plac ement with respec t to negation in main c lauses: Bentzen (2014b)
2. Subjec t plac ement with respec t to negation in embedded c lauses: Garbac z (2014a)
3. Objec t shift: Bentzen (2014c )
In addition, one c hapter disc usses the plac ement of negated or quantified objec ts. As is
disc ussed in the sec iton about the verb phrase, the Nordic languages in general have stric t VO­
order (i.e., the objec t follows the verb). However, in c ertain dialec ts, it is marginally possible to
plac e a negated or quantified direc t objec t in the middle field, to the left of a non­finite verb:
(6)
Han har
inga pengar fått.
He
have.PRES
no
money got.PART
‘I didn't get any money/he has not got any money.’
(Swe.)
This word order pattern is disc ussed in Garbac z (2014b).
3. Auxiliaries, serial verbs and verbal inflection
When it c omes to the morphologic al marking of verbs, there is a big split between the mainland
Nordic languages and the insular Nordic languages. Finite verbs in Ic elandic and Faroese agree
267
Bentzen, Lundquist
The middle field
NALS Journal
268
with the subjec t in person and number, while finite verbs in Swedish, Norwegian and Danish
rarely show any overt agreement. At earlier stages, person and number agreement on verbs was
found all over mainland Sc andinavia, but today, agreement is found only in some small dialec tal
areas, most prominently in Älvdalen and surrounding areas (both person and number agrement),
but also in Northern Sweden (mainly Västerbotten and Norrbotten, only number agreement).The
following two examples show the number agreement for the verb komma ‘c ome’ in the in the
dialec t spoken around Skellefteå ("skelleftemål" or "skelleftebondska") in Västerbotten (example
from two older informants obtained during field work):
(6)
N´Gösta
kom
hem
imorgon.
ART . MASC.Gösta
c ome.PRES.SG
home
tomorrow
‘Gösta c omes home tomorrow/Gösta will c ome home tomorrow.’ (Skelleftemål)
(Swe.)
(7) N´Gösta
a
a'Mai
komma
hem
imorgon
(Swe.)
ART . MASC,Gösta
and ART .FEM .Mai
c ome.PRES.PL.
home
tomorrow.
‘Gösta and Mai c ome home tomorrow/Gösta and Mai will c ome home tomorrow.’ (Skelleftemål)
Verbal agreement was not explic itly investigated in the Sc anDiaSyn­projec t, sinc e the isoglosses
for verb­agreement are fairly well known. Further, plenty has been written about the c orrelation
between ric h verbal agreement and c ertain syntac tic properties, like verb­plac ement and
transitive explitive c onstruc tions, see e.g. Holmberg & Platzac k (1995) and Thráinsson & Bobaljik
1998. Some of these issues are also touc hed upon in the sec tion on verb plac ement (Bentzen
2014). In this sec tion however, the agreement pattern of partic iples in expletive c onstruc tions is
disc ussed, with a foc us on both the form of the expletive, and the syntac tic position of the
agreement­triggering assoc iate (see Larsson 2014a).
The remainder of the c hapters disc uss different aspec ts of the auxiliary system, and
expressions for tense, mood, modality and aspec t:
1. Bliva and varda as passive auxiliaries and c opulas: Lundquist (2014b)
2. Choic e of future auxiliary: Lundquist (2014c )
3. Conditional c lauses and the shape of have: Larsson (2014b)
4. Double supine: Larsson (2014c )
5. Tensed modal forms in non­finite c ontexts: Larsson (2014d)
6. Serial verbs c onstruc tion:Larsson (2014e)
7. Have and be followed by partic iple of unac c usative verb: Larsson (2014f)
8. Omission of the auxiliary have: Garbac z and Larsson (2014)
References
Anderssen, Merete and Kristine Bentzen. 2012. ‘Sc andinavian objec t shift as IP­internal
topic alization,’ Nordlyd, 39:1­23, available at
http://septentrio.uit.no/index.php/nordlyd/issue/view/205.
Andréasson, Maia. 2008. ‘Not all objec ts are born alike — ac c essibility as a key to pronominal
objec t shift in Swedish and Danish,’ in Miriam Butt and Trac y Halloway King (eds),
Proc eedings of the LFG08 Conferenc e, CSLI Public ations, Stanford, 26­45.
Andréasson, Maia. 2009. ‘Pronominal objec t shift — not just a matter of shifting or not,’ Working
268
Bentzen, Lundquist
The middle field
269
NALS Journal
Papers in Sc andinavian Syntax 84, 1­20.
Andréasson, Maia. 2010. ‘Objec t shift or objec t plac ement in general,’ in Miriam Butt and Trac y
Halloway King (eds), Proc eedings of the LFG10 Conferenc e, CSLI Public ations, Stanford, 26­
42.
Bobaljik, Jonathan and Höskuldur Thráinsson. 1998. ‘Two heads aren't always better than one,’
Syntax 1, 37­71.
Faarlund, Jan Terje, Svein Lie and Kjell Ivar Vannebo. 1997. Norsk referansegrammatikk.
Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.
Holmberg, Anders and Christer Platzac k. 1995. The Role of Inflec tion in Sc andinavian Syntax,
Oxford University Press, New York.
Holmberg, Anders. 1986. Word order and syntac tic features in the Sc andinavian languages and
English, PhD Diss, Stoc kholm University, Stoc kholm.
Holmberg, Anders. 1990. ‘The distribution of Sc andinavian weak pronouns.’ In Henk van Riemsdijk
and Luigi Rizzi (eds.) EUROTYP Working Papers, These Group 8: Clitic s and their hosts.
Holmberg, Anders. 1999. ‘Remarks on Holmberg’s Generalization,’ Studia Linguistic a 53.1, 1­39.
Holmberg, Anders and Christer Platzac k. 1995. The Role of Inflec tion in Sc andinavian Syntax,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Josefsson, Gunlög. 2003. ‘Four myths of objec t shift… and the truth,’ in Lars­Olof Delsing, Cec ilia
Falk, Gunlög Josefsson and Halldór Sigurdsson (eds.), Grammar in Foc us: Vol. II. Festsc rift
for Christer Platzac k, November 18, 2003, Department of Sc andinavian Languages, Lund
University, 199­207.
Josefsson, Gunlög. 2010. ‘Objec t Shift and optionality: An intric ate interplay between syntax,
prosody and information struc ture,’ Working Papers in Sc andinavian Syntax 86, 1­24.
Nilsen, Øystein. 1997. ‘Adverbs and A­shift,’ Working Papers in Sc andinavian Syntax 59, 1­31.
Svenonius, Peter. 2002. ‘Subjec t positions and the plac ement of adverbials.’ In Peter Svenonius
(ed.), Subjec ts, Expletives and the EPP, 201­242. New York: Oxford University Press.
Teleman, Ulf, Staffan Hellberg and Erik Andersson. 1999. Svenska Akademiens Grammatik.
Norstedts, Stoc kholm.
Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 2001. ‘Objec t Shift and sc rambling,’ in Mark Baltin and Chris Collins (eds.),
The Handbook of Contemporary Syntac tic Theory, Blac kwell, Oxford, 148­202.
Vikner, Sten. 2006. ‘Objec t Shift,’ in Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), The
Blac kwell Companion to Syntax, Vol III, Blac kwell, Oxford, 392­436.
269