Norwegian Object Shift as IP-internal topicalization

Self Cite

This article reports on a syntactic acceptability judgement study of 59 adult L2/Ln learners of Norwegian and a group of native controls, studying subject and object shift. These constructions involve movement of (mainly) pronominal subjects or objects across negation/adverbs. Both subject shift and object shift display considerable micro-variation in terms of syntax and information structure, dependent on factors such as nominal type (pronoun vs. full DP), function (subject vs. object), and information status (given vs. new/focused). Previous studies have shown that Norwegian children have an early preference for the unshifted position in both constructions, but that they acquire subject shift relatively early (before age 3). Object shift, on the other hand, is typically not in place until after age 6–7. Importantly, children are conservative learners, and never shift elements that should not move in the adult language. The results of the current study show that L2/Ln learners do not make all the fine distinctions that children make, in that they have a clear preference for all subjects in shifted position and all objects in unshifted position, although some distinctions fall into place with increased proficiency. Importantly, unlike children, the L2/Ln learners are not conservative learners; rather, they over-accept syntactic movement in several cases. The equivalent to this in language production would be to apply syntactic movement where it is not attested in the target language, which would be the opposite behaviour to that observed in L1 children.

Section: Magnus Wishes That Not That Right Nowmentioning

confidence: 99%

The acquisition of word order in L2 Norwegian: The case of subject and object shift

Anderssen¹,

Bentzen²,

Busterud³

et al. 2018

Self Cite

“…Point of departure was the claim in Andréasson (2008Andréasson ( , 2010 that propositional anaphors are more reluctant to shift due to decreased cognitive accessibility, and in Anderssen et al (2011) and Anderssen & Bentzen (2012) that VP anaphors can only be aboutness topics -and therefore in situ -since their antecedent is non-individuated. Point of departure was the claim in Andréasson (2008Andréasson ( , 2010 that propositional anaphors are more reluctant to shift due to decreased cognitive accessibility, and in Anderssen et al (2011) and Anderssen & Bentzen (2012) that VP anaphors can only be aboutness topics -and therefore in situ -since their antecedent is non-individuated.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Point of departure was the claim in Andréasson (2008Andréasson ( , 2010 that propositional anaphors are more reluctant to shift due to decreased cognitive accessibility, and in Anderssen et al (2011) and Anderssen & Bentzen (2012) that VP anaphors can only be aboutness topics -and therefore in situ -since their antecedent is non-individuated. In focus corresponds to FAMILIAR TOPIC in Anderssen & Bentzen (2012) and BACKGROUNDED in the present article. A shifted pronoun must be a canonical complement.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

VP anaphors and Object Shift: What do VP anaphors reveal about the licensing conditions for Object Shift in Danish?

Ørsnes¹

2013

The article discusses the placement of the VP anaphor det 'it' as a complement of verbs selecting VP complements in Danish. With verbs that only allow a VP complement, the VP anaphor must be in SpecCP regardless of its information structure properties. If SpecCP is occupied by an operator, the anaphor can be in situ, but it cannot shift. With verbs that allow its VP complement to alternate with an NP complement, the VP anaphor can be in SpecCP, shifted or in situ according to the information structural properties of the anaphor. Only if SpecCP is occupied by an operator, must a topical anaphor be in situ. The article argues that a shifted pronominal in Danish must be categorially licensed by the verb and extends this analysis to shifting locatives. An Optimality Theory analysis is proposed that accounts for the observed facts. . boe.ibc@cbs.dk * Consider next, in Tableaux 4a-c, the verb savne 'to miss' in the very same environments. This verb allows an NP complement. For the verb savne 'to miss', the constraint VP-CAN does not take effect since the VP anaphor is a canonical complement. The constraint OP-SPC, however, takes effect to prevent a topical VP anaphor from being in SpecCP. A topical VP anaphor goes into the in-situ position to

“…Holmberg (1986Holmberg ( , 1999, Josefsson (1992Josefsson ( , 2003Josefsson ( , 2010, Pedersen (1993), Vikner (1994Vikner ( , 1997Vikner ( , 2005, Hellan & Platzack (1995), Collins & Thráinsson (1996), Sells (2001a), Thráinsson (2001Thráinsson ( , 2007Thráinsson ( , 2013 this issue), Svenonius (2002), Andréasson (2008Andréasson ( , 2009Andréasson ( , 2010, Anderssen & Bentzen (2012), Bentzen, Anderssen & Waldmann (2013 this issue), Engels & Vikner (2013 this issue), Ørsnes (2013 this issue).…”

Section: [Ice(landic)]mentioning

confidence: 94%

“…For an analysis of object shift in Norwegian, see Anderssen & Bentzen (2012) and Bentzen et al (2013). 7.…”

Section: On Swedish Andmentioning

confidence: 99%

Object shift in Scandinavian languages: The impact of contrasted elements

Andréasson¹

2013

This paper argues for a unified analysis of mainland Scandinavian pronominal object shift and Icelandic full NP shift. Building on data showing the impact of accessibility on object placement in Swedish, Danish and Icelandic, I propose an Optimality Theoretic analysis where semantic/pragmatic constraints involving accessibility, information structure and contrast interact, but are ranked lower than syntactic constraints on, for example, verb placement. Finally, the impact of prosody on pronominal object shift is discussed.