Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-23T18:05:32.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Extraposition in German and Norwegian. Towards a Contrastive Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

John Ole Askedal
John Ole Askedal
Affiliation:
Universitetet i Oslo, Germanistisk institutt, avd. A, P.O. Box 1004, Blindern N-0315 OSLO 3, Norway.
Get access

Abstract

In the present article, it is claimed that German, being basically an SOV-language, has a clearly delimitable extrapositional field behind the final verb field of the sentence, whereas Norwegian, which belongs to a VO-type, is in this respect more indeterminate. Two general facts corroborate this assumption. First, extraposition is in German systematically correlated with certain other syntactic phenomena that are either non-existent or play a far more peripheral part in Norwegian. Second, certain constructions of German that are uniformly extrapositional have a number of different translational equivalents in Norwegian which are only in part extrapositional in character. It is also claimed that these Norwegian constructions are formally more diverse, insofar as rules with a different structural impact are required to account for their syntactic behaviour.

Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , December 1984 , pp. 83 - 113
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

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

Askedal, J. O. 1976. Innføring i tysk grammatikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Askedal, J. O. 1982a. On the Syntactic Representation of So-Called “Existential-Presentative Sentences” in Norwegian and German. A Contrastive Analysis. In: Fretheim, T. and Hellan, L. (eds.) 1982, pp. 11–25.Google Scholar
Askedal, J. O. 1982b. A Note on Pronominal Substitution in Certain Presentative Passive Sentences in Norwegian. Norskrift 37, 67–71.Google Scholar
Askedal, J. O. 1982c. Über den Zusammenhang zwischen Satztopologie und Statusrektion im Deutschen. Studia Neophilologica 54, 287–308.Google Scholar
Askedal, J. O. 1983a. Noen emner fra norsk-tysk kontrastiv grammatikk. Norskrift 39, 48–73.Google Scholar
Askedal, J. O. 1983b. Kohärenz und Inkohärenz in deutschen Infinitfügungen. Vorschlag zur begrifflichen Klärung. Lingua 59, 177–196.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon 1962. The Order of Elements in a Transformational Grammar of German. Language 38, 263–269.Google Scholar
Bech, Gunnar 1955. Studien über das deutsche verbum infinitum. 1. bd. København: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Diderichsen, P. 1962. Elementœr Dansk Grammatik. 3. Udg. København: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
Der Groβe Duden Band 4: Duden Grammatik der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Hg. v. Grebe, Paul et al. Bibliographisches Institut, Mannheim — Wien — Zürich 1973.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. E. 1970. Root and Structure-Preserving Transformations. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. E. 1976. A Transformational Approach to English Syntax. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Engdahl, E. & Ejerhed, E. (eds.) 1982. Readings on Unbounded Dependencies in Scandinavian Languages. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Fretheim, T. 1977. Syntaktisk analogi — noe mer enn en billig nødløsning? En undersøkelse av konstruksjoner med det formelle subjekt det. In: Fretheim, T. (ed.) 1977: Sentrale problemer i norsk syntaks. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. pp. 113–170.Google Scholar
Fretheim, T. & Hellan, L. (eds.) 1982. Papers from the Sixth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, Røros, June 19–21. Trondheim: Tapir.Google Scholar
Faarlund, J. T. 1980. Norsk syntaks i funksjonelt perspektiv. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. 1963. Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements. In Greenberg, J. H. (ed.) 1963. Universals of Language. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. — London, pp. 73–113.Google Scholar
Grubačić, E. 1965. Untersuchungen zur Frage der Wortstellung in der deutschen Prosadichtung der letzten Jahrzehnte. Philosophische Fakultät der Universität Zagreb, Abteilung für Germanistik, Zagreb.Google Scholar
Hansen, E. 1970. Sætningsskema og verbalskemaer. In: Nydanske Studier & Almen kommunikationsteori 3, pp. 116–137.Google Scholar
Hansen, E. 1974. De nye der-konstruktioner. En øjenvidneberetning. In: Andersen, P. et al. (eds.) 1974. Festskrift til Kristian Hald. København: Akademisk Forlag L, pp. 391–404.Google Scholar
Herslund, M. 1982. Ergative Substructures in “Objective” Languages? In: Fretheim, T. and Hellan, L. (eds.) 1982, pp. 75–83.Google Scholar
Hovdhaugen, E. 1971. Transformasjonell generativ grammatikk. 2. utg. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Huber, W. & Kummer, W. 1974. Transformationelle Syntax des Deutschen I. München: Wilhelm Fink.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1969. Analytic Syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. (1st ed. 1937).Google Scholar
Jørgensen, P. 1964. Tysk Grammatik III. København: G. E. C. Gad.Google Scholar
Köhler, K.-H. 1976. Zum Problem der Korrelate in Gliedsätzen. In: Schumacher, H. (ed.) 1976. Untersuchungen zur Verbvalenz. Eine Dokumentation über die Arbeit an einem deutschen Valenzlexikon. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. pp. 174–239.Google Scholar
Körner, R. 1948. Studier över syntaktisk nybildning i svenskan. I: De prepositionella passivbildningarna med hänsyn tagen till motsvarande nybildningar i danskan, norskan och engelskan. Lund: Carl Bloms Boktryckeri.Google Scholar
Kvam, S. 1983. Linksverschachtelung im Deutschen und Norwegischen. Eine kontrastive Untersuchung zur Satzverschränkung und Infinitivverschränkung in der deutschen und norwegischen Gegenwartssprache. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Lie, S. 1984. Innføring i norsk syntaks. 3. utg., 2. oppl. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. 1979. Rule Classes and Syntactic Change. Linguistic Inquiry 10, pp. 83–108.Google Scholar
Lorentz, O. 1979. Norsk setningsform. Et kompendium i transformasjonssyntaks. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Olsen, S. 1981. Problems of SEEM/SCHEINEN Constructions and their Implications for the Theory of Predicate Sentential Complementation. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Postal, P. M. 1974. On Raising. One Rule of English Grammar and its Theoretical Implications. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pütz, H. 1975. Uber die Syntax der Pronominalform ‘es’ im modernen Deutsch. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Reis, M. 1983. Satzeinleitende Strukturen im Deutschen. Über COMP, Haupt- und Nebensätze, w-Bewegung und die REST. Ms. Köln — Paris.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, P. S. 1967. The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Wasow, T. 1977. Transformations and the Lexicon. In: Culicover, P. W., Wasow, T. & Akmajian, A. (eds.) 1977. Formal Syntax. London: Academic Press, pp. 327–360.Google Scholar