Startseite Linguistik & Semiotik Finiteness, inflection, and the syntax your morphology can afford
Kapitel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Finiteness, inflection, and the syntax your morphology can afford

  • Kristin Melum Eide
Weitere Titel anzeigen von John Benjamins Publishing Company
Zur Verlagsseite
Finiteness Matters
Ein Kapitel aus dem Buch Finiteness Matters

Abstract

In this paper English and Norwegian are compared with respect to a range of syntactic constructions (negated clauses, negative inversion, polarity questions, declaratives, subjunctives, why-not- constructions and infinitives). The paper also discusses preterit-participle mix-ups in English and relates these to the behaviour of main verbs in the investigated constructions. It is argued that in both languages these constructions require either an explicitly encoded finiteness feature, or, for the second set of constructions, the explicitly encoded absence of such a feature. English auxiliaries and main verbs differ in their respective feature specifications as regards finiteness, hence main verbs are banned from many of the positions where auxiliaries appear, and vice versa. English main verbs are bereft of a productive morphologically expressed finiteness distinction (except for in a few, but frequent irregular main verbs distinguishing preterits from participles), whereas auxiliaries have and be exhibit full paradigms of finite and non-finite forms. The modals and auxiliary do, on the other hand, exist only as finite forms and are hence banned from positions where non-finiteness is explicitly required by a given syntactic operation or construction. Hence, the finiteness feature is unevenly distributed across verbs and auxiliaries in English, but evenly distributed in all verbal categories in Norwegian, where all main verbs, modals and auxiliaries have full paradigms of finite and non-finite forms. This state of events, it is claimed, gives rise to the observed parametric variation between the Norwegian and English verbal systems.

Abstract

In this paper English and Norwegian are compared with respect to a range of syntactic constructions (negated clauses, negative inversion, polarity questions, declaratives, subjunctives, why-not- constructions and infinitives). The paper also discusses preterit-participle mix-ups in English and relates these to the behaviour of main verbs in the investigated constructions. It is argued that in both languages these constructions require either an explicitly encoded finiteness feature, or, for the second set of constructions, the explicitly encoded absence of such a feature. English auxiliaries and main verbs differ in their respective feature specifications as regards finiteness, hence main verbs are banned from many of the positions where auxiliaries appear, and vice versa. English main verbs are bereft of a productive morphologically expressed finiteness distinction (except for in a few, but frequent irregular main verbs distinguishing preterits from participles), whereas auxiliaries have and be exhibit full paradigms of finite and non-finite forms. The modals and auxiliary do, on the other hand, exist only as finite forms and are hence banned from positions where non-finiteness is explicitly required by a given syntactic operation or construction. Hence, the finiteness feature is unevenly distributed across verbs and auxiliaries in English, but evenly distributed in all verbal categories in Norwegian, where all main verbs, modals and auxiliaries have full paradigms of finite and non-finite forms. This state of events, it is claimed, gives rise to the observed parametric variation between the Norwegian and English verbal systems.

Kapitel in diesem Buch

  1. Prelim pages i
  2. Table of contents v
  3. Introduction 1
  4. Part I: Finiteness: underlying relations
  5. Finiteness and Pseudofiniteness 47
  6. The Split T Analysis 79
  7. Universals and variation 93
  8. Finiteness, inflection, and the syntax your morphology can afford 121
  9. Part II: Morphosyntactic exponents of (non-)finiteness
  10. Agreement is not an essential ingredient of finiteness 171
  11. Non-finiteness in Saamáka 189
  12. Finiteness and response particles in West Flemish 211
  13. Part III: Finiteness in language acquisition
  14. Word order and finiteness in acquisition 257
  15. The influence of phonological factors on the expression of finiteness by children learning Dutch as their first and second language 287
  16. Contradictory parameter settings in one mind 309
  17. Index 343
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.231.05eid

Kapitel in diesem Buch

  1. Prelim pages i
  2. Table of contents v
  3. Introduction 1
  4. Part I: Finiteness: underlying relations
  5. Finiteness and Pseudofiniteness 47
  6. The Split T Analysis 79
  7. Universals and variation 93
  8. Finiteness, inflection, and the syntax your morphology can afford 121
  9. Part II: Morphosyntactic exponents of (non-)finiteness
  10. Agreement is not an essential ingredient of finiteness 171
  11. Non-finiteness in Saamáka 189
  12. Finiteness and response particles in West Flemish 211
  13. Part III: Finiteness in language acquisition
  14. Word order and finiteness in acquisition 257
  15. The influence of phonological factors on the expression of finiteness by children learning Dutch as their first and second language 287
  16. Contradictory parameter settings in one mind 309
  17. Index 343
Jetzt anmelden und 20% sparen
Institutioneller Zugang
Wie funktioniert Authentifizierung?
Haben Sie eine Idee, wie wir unsere Website verbessern können?
Bitte schreiben Sie uns.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Heruntergeladen am 14.12.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1075/la.231.05eid/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen