Abstract
We discuss remarkable constructions in Icelandic that have the distributive pronoun hvor ‘each’ in common: the reciprocal construction hvor annar ‘each other’, and the distributive construction hvor sinn ‘each their’, which also comes in a sinn hvor ‘their each’ version. We provide the first detailed description of these constructions, in particular their case and word order properties, which raise recalcitrant puzzles, and then we discuss what they say about the syntax of nonfinite verbs. Specifically, the word order and case properties of these constructions indicate that nonfinite verbs in Icelandic undergo short verb movement within the verb phrase. That is, the evidence indicates that the leftmost element in these constructions, alternatively hvor or sinn, originates inside an object DP and moves, by what we call e-raising, to the base position of an antecedent with which it agrees, before being stranded by that very antecedent. Nevertheless, the verb appears to the left of this element, even when it is a nonfinite verb, showing that it must undergo short movement to the left of Spec,vP. In addition, the interaction of e-raising and case has important consequences for Case theory, as it indicates that case agreement and case marking take place in PF.
Highlights
It is well-known that finite verbs in Icelandic move to the TP domain in non-verb-second environments and may move to the CP domain in V2 environments
This claim is motivated by an analysis of understudied constructions in Icelandic that have the distributive element hvor ‘each’ in common: the reciprocal construction hvor annar ‘each other’, and the distributive contrastive or separative hvor sinn ‘each their’, which comes in a sinn hvor ‘their each’ version
We propose a unified account of these puzzles: the higher e-associate, hvor or sinn, raises to the base position of its antecedent, by what we call e-raising, getting the same case as the antecedent
Summary
It is well-known that finite verbs in Icelandic move to the TP domain in non-verb-second (nonV2) environments and may move to the CP domain in V2 environments (see Thrainsson 2007 and the many references there). It would have to be possible for a nominal element, hvor or sinn, to be located inside the case-marking domain of a transitive verb yet be able to agree in case with an antecedent outside that domain We reject this conjecture, claiming instead that the higher e-associate has raised out of the case domain of the prepositions in (1)–(3) and the main verbs in (4). We propose a unified account of these puzzles: the higher e-associate, hvor or sinn, raises to the base position of its antecedent, by what we call e-raising, getting the same case as the antecedent (nominative in the examples above).
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.