{"title":"斯堪的纳维亚语和英语中的名词VP拟声词","authors":"Andrew Weir","doi":"10.1007/s10828-024-09154-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper investigates the properties of nominal phrases and demonstratives used as verbal anaphora in Norwegian, Danish, English, and Scots-English, e.g. English <i>Can John make good curry? – </i><i><u>That</u></i><i> he can</i>; Norwegian <i>Anja ligger godt an, </i><i><u>det samme</u></i><i> gjør Madelène</i> lit. ‘Anja is in a good position, Madelène does the same [thing]’. Following Lødrup (Proceedings of NELS 24, 1994), Houser et al. (Proceedings of WECOL 34, 2007), Bentzen et al. (J Comp Ger Linguist 16:91–125, 2013), these anaphoric expressions are argued to be surface anaphora and to conceal elided vPs. Contrary to previous analyses, the nominal phrases are argued to themselves be contributing meaning beyond the vPs they conceal; they are argued to be overt background arguments for an ellipsis-licensing head with semantics similar to Rooth’s ∼ operator (Nat Lang Semant 1(1):75–116, 1992). The paper also explores cross-linguistic variation in the discourse/antecedence conditions on such anaphora, and their fronting behavior. In Danish and (general) English, such anaphora must generally topicalize, whereas in Norwegian and Scots-English, they can more freely appear in situ (in post-auxiliary position). Developing Mikkelsen’s (J Linguist 51(3):595–643, 2015) analysis of Danish <i>det</i>, this behavior is encoded as a feature [uTop] which must be checked; Norwegian is argued to have more possibilities to check this feature in situ than Danish, while in Scots-English, <i>that</i> is argued to be a propositional anaphor, lacking the relevant feature.</p>","PeriodicalId":75059,"journal":{"name":"The journal of comparative Germanic linguistics","volume":"151 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Nominal VP anaphora in Scandinavian and English\",\"authors\":\"Andrew Weir\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10828-024-09154-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This paper investigates the properties of nominal phrases and demonstratives used as verbal anaphora in Norwegian, Danish, English, and Scots-English, e.g. English <i>Can John make good curry? – </i><i><u>That</u></i><i> he can</i>; Norwegian <i>Anja ligger godt an, </i><i><u>det samme</u></i><i> gjør Madelène</i> lit. ‘Anja is in a good position, Madelène does the same [thing]’. Following Lødrup (Proceedings of NELS 24, 1994), Houser et al. (Proceedings of WECOL 34, 2007), Bentzen et al. (J Comp Ger Linguist 16:91–125, 2013), these anaphoric expressions are argued to be surface anaphora and to conceal elided vPs. Contrary to previous analyses, the nominal phrases are argued to themselves be contributing meaning beyond the vPs they conceal; they are argued to be overt background arguments for an ellipsis-licensing head with semantics similar to Rooth’s ∼ operator (Nat Lang Semant 1(1):75–116, 1992). The paper also explores cross-linguistic variation in the discourse/antecedence conditions on such anaphora, and their fronting behavior. In Danish and (general) English, such anaphora must generally topicalize, whereas in Norwegian and Scots-English, they can more freely appear in situ (in post-auxiliary position). Developing Mikkelsen’s (J Linguist 51(3):595–643, 2015) analysis of Danish <i>det</i>, this behavior is encoded as a feature [uTop] which must be checked; Norwegian is argued to have more possibilities to check this feature in situ than Danish, while in Scots-English, <i>that</i> is argued to be a propositional anaphor, lacking the relevant feature.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":75059,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The journal of comparative Germanic linguistics\",\"volume\":\"151 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The journal of comparative Germanic linguistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-024-09154-w\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The journal of comparative Germanic linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-024-09154-w","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本文研究了挪威语、丹麦语、英语和苏格兰-英语中用作动词拟声词的名词性短语和状语的特性,例如英语中的Can John make good curry?- 他可以;挪威语 Anja ligger godt an, det samme gjør Madelène lit.Anja is in a good position, Madelène does the same [thing]'.继 Lødrup(NELS 24 会议记录,1994 年)、Houser 等人(WECOL 34 会议记录,2007 年)和 Bentzen 等人(J Comper Ger Linguist 16:91-125, 2013 年)之后,这些拟声表达被认为是表面拟声,掩盖了被省略的 vPs。与之前的分析相反,本文认为这些名词性短语本身的意义超出了它们所隐藏的 vPs;本文认为它们是省略许可头的公开背景论据,其语义类似于 Rooth 的 ∼ 运算符(Nat Lang Semant 1(1):75-116,1992)。本文还探讨了此类拟声词的话语/反义条件及其前置行为的跨语言差异。在丹麦语和(普通)英语中,这类拟声词一般必须是topicalize,而在挪威语和苏格兰英语中,它们可以更自由地在原地(后助词位置)出现。根据米克尔森(《语言学家》,51(3):595-643, 2015年)对丹麦语det的分析,这种行为被编码为一个必须被检查的特征[uTop];挪威语被认为比丹麦语有更多的可能性在原位检查这一特征,而苏格兰英语则被认为是一种命题拟词,缺乏相关特征。
This paper investigates the properties of nominal phrases and demonstratives used as verbal anaphora in Norwegian, Danish, English, and Scots-English, e.g. English Can John make good curry? – That he can; Norwegian Anja ligger godt an, det samme gjør Madelène lit. ‘Anja is in a good position, Madelène does the same [thing]’. Following Lødrup (Proceedings of NELS 24, 1994), Houser et al. (Proceedings of WECOL 34, 2007), Bentzen et al. (J Comp Ger Linguist 16:91–125, 2013), these anaphoric expressions are argued to be surface anaphora and to conceal elided vPs. Contrary to previous analyses, the nominal phrases are argued to themselves be contributing meaning beyond the vPs they conceal; they are argued to be overt background arguments for an ellipsis-licensing head with semantics similar to Rooth’s ∼ operator (Nat Lang Semant 1(1):75–116, 1992). The paper also explores cross-linguistic variation in the discourse/antecedence conditions on such anaphora, and their fronting behavior. In Danish and (general) English, such anaphora must generally topicalize, whereas in Norwegian and Scots-English, they can more freely appear in situ (in post-auxiliary position). Developing Mikkelsen’s (J Linguist 51(3):595–643, 2015) analysis of Danish det, this behavior is encoded as a feature [uTop] which must be checked; Norwegian is argued to have more possibilities to check this feature in situ than Danish, while in Scots-English, that is argued to be a propositional anaphor, lacking the relevant feature.