Research has shown that givenness is one of several factors that influence the choice of
word order with the Dative Alternation in languages such as English. This paper investigates to what extent Norwegian children between the ages of 4;2 and 6;0 are sensitive to this factor in production. In order to test this, an experiment was carried out in which the children were prompted to produce structures involving ditransitive verbs when either the Theme or the Recipient was given. The results show that the children are sensitive to the impact of givenness, but while this is expressed through the choice of word order in Theme-given contexts (yielding the prepositional dative), it is expressed by argument omission in the Recipient-given contexts (resulting in one-argument responses with only the Theme overtly produced).
In this paper we discuss the phenomenon of Object Shift in Norwegian, and we show that this operation is more complex and discourse related than what has traditionally been assumed. We argue that Object Shift cannot be accounted for in a purely prosodic approach. Rather, we demonstrate that a common denominator for all objects undergoing Object Shift is that they are topics. We thus propose that Object Shift should be analysed as (IP-internal) topicalization. Furthermore, we discuss in detail the peculiar behaviour of the topical pronominal object det ‘it’ in cases where its referent is not an individuated, gender-agreeing noun, but rather a non-individuated referent, like a full clause, a VP or a type DP. In such cases, this pronoun typically refrains from Object Shift. We discuss the contrast between these types of objects and shifting objects in light of the topic hierarchy presented in Frascarelli & Hinterhölzl (2007) and show that pronominal objects that undergo Object Shift have the characteristics of familiar topics, while det ‘it’ in the nonshifting contexts have the characteristics of aboutness topics. Consequently, we propose that Object Shift only applies to pronominal objects that constitute familiar topics.
One of the main topics on the study of the relationship between syntax and morphology is
(deverbal) nominalizations. In this area, several generalizations that tie the morphological
make-up with the syntactic structure have been made. Most relevantly, it has been argued that only overt nominalizations (those that include a nominalizer like -ation or -ment) are allowed to have internal arguments introduced in their structural representation. In this paper, we address some previously unexplained apparent counterexamples to this generalization, and we argue that they can be captured if particular restrictions on the spell out of the syntactic structure are taken into consideration.
In this paper we propose that some nominal structures involve rising of a possessive pronoun from a lower, defective nominal domain to a structure headed by a noun with which they do not hold any direct semantic relation. The conditions
under which this operation can take place are explored. It can only happen when the lower domain is severely impoverished; it is introduced by a weak preposition that does not define a phase and when the PP is selected by the head noun as its complement.
This article discusses the possibility that Lexical Integrity effects can be explained by proposing that words are syntactic phases, thus eliminating these effects from the set of phenomena that argue in favour of the autonomy of morphology. The proposal is discussed from both a theoretical and an empirical perspective, and it is shown, in the first place, that the phases proposed to give account of some of these phenomena do not behave like syntactic phases and, secondly, that syntactic phases would be insufficient to cope with the impossibility of pronominal coreference with word internal
constituents. It is concluded that, given our present understanding of syntax, Lexical Integrity effects still argue for the autonomy of morphology.