Advanced

Possessor licensing, definiteness and case in Scandinavian

Julien, Marit LU (2005) In The function of function words and functional categories
Abstract
There are many ways to realise a DP-internal possessor in Scandinavian. In some varieties, such as Standard Swedish and Standard Danish, all DP-internal possessors are prenominal. In other varieties, such as Faroese, Icelandic, and Norwegian, possessors can be either prenominal or postnominal. In the case of a pronominal possessor, prenominal position has to do with focus in these varieties. The same is true for nonpronominal possessors in Icelandic. In Faroese and Norwegian, on the other hand, the position of a nonpronominal possessor is a consequence of the way it is licensed.



One of the goals of this paper is to demonstrate that all the different possessive constructions found in Scandinavian can be derived from the... (More)
There are many ways to realise a DP-internal possessor in Scandinavian. In some varieties, such as Standard Swedish and Standard Danish, all DP-internal possessors are prenominal. In other varieties, such as Faroese, Icelandic, and Norwegian, possessors can be either prenominal or postnominal. In the case of a pronominal possessor, prenominal position has to do with focus in these varieties. The same is true for nonpronominal possessors in Icelandic. In Faroese and Norwegian, on the other hand, the position of a nonpronominal possessor is a consequence of the way it is licensed.



One of the goals of this paper is to demonstrate that all the different possessive constructions found in Scandinavian can be derived from the same basic configuration, such that surface variation results from movements that take place for licensing or for other reasons. Another main point is that possessors make their containing DPs definite in Scandinavian, except in conservative Icelandic. I will argue that the definiteness of possessed DPs is a consequence of an agreement relation that is established between the possessor and the functional domain of the possessed DP. In the case of a pronominal possessor we will also see that even though it agrees with the possessee, its case is not licensed by the possessee. Hence, it appears that despite claims to the contrary, structural case is not a reflex of agreement. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding
publication status
published
subject
keywords
nominal phrases, Possessors, Scandinavian, definiteness
in
The function of function words and functional categories
editor
den Dikken, Marcel and Tortora, Christina
publisher
John Benjamins Publishing Company
ISBN
90-272-2802-7
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
2b26ac93-8df1-4086-aa15-b6628d924b86 (old id 534800)
date added to LUP
2007-09-26 10:01:38
date last changed
2016-04-16 08:16:56
@inbook{2b26ac93-8df1-4086-aa15-b6628d924b86,
  abstract     = {There are many ways to realise a DP-internal possessor in Scandinavian. In some varieties, such as Standard Swedish and Standard Danish, all DP-internal possessors are prenominal. In other varieties, such as Faroese, Icelandic, and Norwegian, possessors can be either prenominal or postnominal. In the case of a pronominal possessor, prenominal position has to do with focus in these varieties. The same is true for nonpronominal possessors in Icelandic. In Faroese and Norwegian, on the other hand, the position of a nonpronominal possessor is a consequence of the way it is licensed.<br/><br>
<br/><br>
One of the goals of this paper is to demonstrate that all the different possessive constructions found in Scandinavian can be derived from the same basic configuration, such that surface variation results from movements that take place for licensing or for other reasons. Another main point is that possessors make their containing DPs definite in Scandinavian, except in conservative Icelandic. I will argue that the definiteness of possessed DPs is a consequence of an agreement relation that is established between the possessor and the functional domain of the possessed DP. In the case of a pronominal possessor we will also see that even though it agrees with the possessee, its case is not licensed by the possessee. Hence, it appears that despite claims to the contrary, structural case is not a reflex of agreement.},
  author       = {Julien, Marit},
  editor       = {den Dikken, Marcel and Tortora, Christina},
  isbn         = {90-272-2802-7},
  keyword      = {nominal phrases,Possessors,Scandinavian,definiteness},
  language     = {eng},
  publisher    = {John Benjamins Publishing Company},
  series       = {The function of function words and functional categories},
  title        = {Possessor licensing, definiteness and case in Scandinavian},
  year         = {2005},
}