What's the better move? On verb placement in Standard and Northern Norwegian
What's the better move? On verb placement in Standard and Northern Norwegian
复制标题
什么是更好的举动？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2005
影响因子：
0.5
通讯作者：
Kristine Bentzen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kristine Bentzen
北挪威语 (NN) 允许在非 V2 语境中动词位于副词之前，而在标准挪威语 (StN) 中动词必须位于副词之后。这些事实是针对从句结构的三种不同方法进行讨论的。 NN 对于头部运动帐户来说是有问题的（参见 Cinque 1999），因为多个动词可能位于给定副词之前，导致违反头部运动约束。多位置账户（参见 Ernst 2002，Svenonius 2002）会假设 StN 和 NN 中的任何副词都可以与高位置相连，这在范围关系方面可能存在问题。剩余运动方法（参见 Nilsen 2003）可以通过一种概括来解释 StN 和大部分 NN 数据，但是 NN 中的有限动词需要单独的概括。因此，所有三种方法都面临着挪威数据的挑战。然而，有人认为，残余运动方法似乎是三种方法中最有前途的。
Northern Norwegian (NN) allows verbs to precede adverbs in non-V2 contexts, whereas in Standard Norwegian (StN) verbs have to follow adverbs. These facts are discussed with respect to three different approaches to clausal structure. NN is problematic for a head movement account (cf. Cinque 1999) because multiple verbs may precede a given adverb, leading to violations of the Head Movement Constraint. A multiple positions account (cf. Ernst 2002, Svenonius 2002) would assume that any adverb in StN and NN can be adjoined to high positions, which may be problematic with respect to scope relations. A remnant movement approach (cf. Nilsen 2003) can account for both StN and much of the NN data by means of one generalisation, but a separate generalisation is needed for finite verbs in NN. Thus, all three approaches are faced with challenges with respect to the Norwegian data. However, it is argued that the remnant movement approach seems the most promising of the three approaches.