Inversion in Embedded Clauses in Modern Icelandic

In this paper I argue that EPP effects are of two different types, NP-movement and the Filled Left Edge Effect. While NP-movement is driven in Narrow Syntax by the computation of Person, some Filled Left Edge phenomena, including Icelandic Stylistic Fronting, seem to take place in PF. Even so, these phenomena also reflect the clausal computation, that is, the matching processes that value clause internal elements in relation to features of the speech event.

Section: þAð and Clicmentioning

confidence: 99%

On EPP effects*

Sigurðsson¹

2010

“…4 In (8) there are examples of that type of V3 (cf. Maling 1980, Sigurðsson 1986, Thra´insson 1986and Ro¨gnvaldsson & Thra´insson 1990 The behavior of these adverbs is obviously different from the pre-VP adverbs since they can occur in second position in matrix clauses as well. Of course, this V3-phenomenon needs an explanation but I am not going into that matter here.…”

Section: Adverbs and V3mentioning

confidence: 99%

Verb‐third in embedded clauses in Icelandic^*

Angantýsson¹

2007

This paper is a survey of the possibilities of having the so-called Scandinavian or verb-third (V3) order in Icelandic embedded clauses, namely the order where the finite verb follows a sentential adverb (like the negation for instance). It is shown that although this order is possible in most types of embedded clauses in Icelandic, it is severely restricted and heavily marked. It commonly requires an extra stress on the adverb and it is frequently more acceptable if the subject is an unstressed pronoun. The naturalness of the order also depends on the type of embedded clause involved, being most natural in relative clauses and indirect questions introduced by a wh-pronoun but least acceptable in that-complements. It is argued that the proper analysis of this order in embedded clauses in Icelandic involves exceptional adjunction of the adverb in question to the TP instead of the usual VP-adjunction of such adverbs. Thus it is maintained that the Adv-V order in these clauses is not due to exceptional lack of V-movement in Icelandic but rather to exceptional AdvP-adjunction. In the Scandinavian languages, on the other hand, the V3 order in embedded clauses is argued to be best analyzed as lack of V-movement (lack of V-to-I), as usually assumed. The paper follows the analysis proposed by Bobaljik & Thra´insson (1998) in relating this difference between Icelandic and (Mainland) Scandinavian to the presence vs. absence of a split inflectional phrase. * I am indebted to Ho¨skuldur Thra´insson and Jo´hannes Gı´sli Jo´nsson for comprehensive comments on an earlier (Icelandic) version of this paper (Anganty´sson 2001) and to Christer Platzack and the two reviewers of Studia Linguistica, Halldo´r Á rmann Sigurðsson and an anonymous referee, for valuable comments on the English draft. I would also like to thank Molly Diesing, John Bowers and Masayuki Gibson for helpful comments and discussion, and Einar Freyr Sigurðsson for technical assistance. All remaining shortcomings are of course mine.The V3 order that I am presenting here is from three different sources. Firstly, I have made up my own examples, as a native speaker of Icelandic, on which the discussion is mostly built. Since the grammaticality is rather variable, in my view, the following detailed diacritics are used:(i) a. No diacritic = completely natural (although another word order might be more straightforward) b. ? = a little bit odd c. ?? = very strange d. ?* = bad but maybe not completely out e. * = ungrammatical Secondly, I have collected several examples from the Internet (via a Google search) and I list some of them in footnotes to show that this word order is not only in my idiolect. Finally, judgments of this word order were collected in connection with the Syntactic Variation Project in Iceland (see Thra´insson et al. 2005). The results from the pilot study confirm that the V3 phenomenon is very marked and needs specific prosodic adjustments to be accepted but there was no evidence for age-related, areal or social variation with respect to this word or...

“…While embedded topicalization turns its clause into an island (14a), extraction across an element that has undergone SF is possible (14b) (cf. Maling 1990, R€ ognvaldsson and Thr ainsson 1990, J onsson 1991, Holmberg 2006 I assume that the topicalized phrase in (14a) and (15a) occupies Spec-C of the embedded clause, which can therefore not function as an "escape hatch" for further elements to be extracted. By contrast, the escape hatch is readily available in (14b) and (15b), revealing that the fronted element in this case does not occupy Spec-C. With Maling (1990) and Holmberg (2006), among others, I conclude that SF is distinct from embedded topicalization in terms of underlying operations.…”

Section: Key Properties Of Sfmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This prediction is borne out. According to Maling (1980Maling ( , 1990, SF is governed by the following "accessibility hierarchy": 15 There are independent reasons to take the negation in Icelandic to be phrasal (cf. Ouhalla 1990).…”

Section: Adverbs and Negationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Throughout, the discussion will focus on Icelandic, although SF also exists in Faroese and perhaps other languages (for a comprehensive survey, see Holmberg 2006, to appear a). SF was first discussed by Maling (1980Maling ( , 1990, who observed that Icelandic permits optional inversion of the finite verb and some postverbal element, such as a negation, under certain conditions:…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Stylistic Fronting as Remnant Movement

Ott

2016

This paper presents a novel analysis of the phenomenon of stylistic fronting in Icelandic. It is argued that stylistic fronting is not a head-movement operation, but rather phrasal movement to subject position. In many cases, however, independent factors determine evacuation of the phrase prior to raising, i.e. the fronted phrase can be a remnant. It is shown that this approach can account for a variety of otherwise puzzling properties of stylistic fronting.