Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T19:01:48.993Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Der

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

Nomi Erteschik-Shir
Nomi Erteschik-Shir
Affiliation:
Dept. of Foreign Literatures and Linquistics, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Israel
Get access

Abstract

This paper presents a unified account of the distribution of Danish der within the framework of Government and Binding, analyzing der as a subject filler. The existence of empty subjects in cases of extraction out of embedded questions is explained by assuming proper government by AGR, not due to verbal inflection as in pro-drop languages, but rather due to the absorption by AGR of the features of an empty co-superscripted postverbal position.

Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , December 1985 , pp. 131 - 148
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Borer, H. 1981. Parametric Variation in Clitic Constructions, M.I.T. Ph.D.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1982. Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Linguistic Inquiry, Monograph Six, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Diderichsen, P. 1968. Elementcer Dansk Grammatik. København: Gydendal.Google Scholar
Engdahl, E. 1983. Parasitic Gaps. Subject Extractions, and the ECP. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 6.Google Scholar
Engdahl, E. 1984 a. Subject Gaps: An Asymmetry between Questions and Relative Clauses in Norwegian. Proceedings of NELS 14, pp. 64–80.Google Scholar
Engdahl, E. 1984 b. Parasitic Gaps, Resumptive Pronouns, and Subject Extractions, Ms. Lund University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, N. 1982. Extractability in Danish and the Pragmatic Principle of Dominance. In Engdahl, E. and Ejerhed, E. (eds): Readings on Unbounded Dependencies in Scandinavian Languages. Acta Universitatis Umensis, Umeå. pp. 175–191.Google Scholar
Hansen, A. 1967. Moderne Danks. Købdnhavn: Grafisk Forlag.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, T. (1984). Transitivity, Grammatical Relations in Government-Binding Theory. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, B. & Jensen, P. A. (unpublished). “Some Remarks on Danish Weakly Stressed der.”Google Scholar
Kayne, R. 1981. ECP Extensions. Linguistic Inquiry 12, 93–133.Google Scholar
Platzack, C. (1983). Germanic Word Order and the COMP/INFL Parameter. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 2.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. 1981. A Second COMP Position. In Belletti, A., Brandi, L. & Rizzi, L. (eds): Theory of Markedness in Generative Grammar. Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa. pp. 517–557.Google Scholar
Reuland, E. J. 1983. Conditions on Indefinites. GLOW Newsletter, 10.Google Scholar
Spore, P. 1965. La Langue Danoise. København: Akademisk Forlag.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, K. T. 1983. SOM. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 1.Google Scholar