Pages 11-20 below are REPLACED by the second hand-out (called part II)
The Sentence Structure
of English and Danish (part I)
Unikursus 4 & 5, Engelsklærerforeningen for Gymnasiet og HF
21.01. & 25.02.2011, Aarhus Universitet
Sten Vikner
Department of English, Institute of Language, Literature & Culture,
University of Aarhus, 8000 Århus C
[email protected] - www.hum.au.dk/engelsk/engsv
Wer fremde Sprachen nicht kennt, weiß nichts von seiner eigenen
(Goethe, Maximen und Reflexionen II, 1833)
Content
Introduction......................................................................................................................................2
1.1
Constituents..............................................................................................................................2
1.2
Constituency tests ....................................................................................................................4
1.2.1
Movement ........................................................................................................................5
1.2.2
Substitution ......................................................................................................................7
1.2.3
Deletion............................................................................................................................8
2. Clause structure in tree analyses and in field analyses ....................................................................9
3. Another field analysis (but with a comparative touch)..................................................................11
3.1
Introduction............................................................................................................................11
3.2
Danish in detail ......................................................................................................................11
3.3
English in detail .....................................................................................................................12
3.4
Common properties Danish/English ......................................................................................13
3.4.1
Options in the object box(es) .........................................................................................13
3.4.2
Options in the verb cirle(s) ............................................................................................14
3.5
Differences Danish/English ...................................................................................................15
3.5.1
Main vs. embedded clauses in general...........................................................................15
3.5.2
Topics containing a question element or a negative element ........................................16
3.5.3
Finite verb circle vs. finite aux circle.............................................................................17
3.5.4
There is no second finite circle in Danish......................................................................18
3.5.5
not can trigger do-insertion, ikke cannot........................................................................19
3.6
Concluding remarks ...............................................................................................................20
References..............................................................................................................................................21
Appendix: The British National Corpus ................................................................................................22
1.
"This course will provide an overview of the most important similarities and differences between
English and Danish word order. These are both of theoretical interest as well as of practical
importance since the differences may very well be where learners have most difficulties. The course
will also show how the differences can be analysed within modern syntactic theory as well as within
the classic framework of Diderichsen 1946."
Vikner: The Sentence Structure of English and Danish, p. 1
1.
Introduction
1.1 Constituents
This section presents some diagnostics for the identification of the units of clause structure, which are
called constituents:
Constituent:
Any of the parts that make up a whole
(Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, 2003)
Constituency:
Relation, especially in syntax, between a unit which is part of a larger unit and the
whole of which it is part. E.g. the adjective phrase very friendly is a constituent of
the noun phrase very friendly people.
(Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, 1997)
Here is an example of constituent structure, not from syntax but from morphology:
Words (like clauses) can be ambiguous, i.e. they have more than one potential meaning. Words
can be lexically ambiguous, e.g. bat ('animal' or 'instrument'), or arm ('to equip with weapons' or 'a
limb') or they can be structurally ambiguous, where the different structures reflect different
interpretations (notice also the equivalence of the tree notation and the square bracket notation):
(1)
b.
a.
un-
lock -able
un-
[un- [lock-able]]
'cannot be locked'
lock
-able
[[un-lock] -able]
'can be unlocked'
Other words only have one structure:
(2)
a.
b.
un-[want-ed] vs. *[un-want]-ed
[be-friend]-ed vs. * be-[friend-ed]
Here are some parallel examples from Danish and German:
(3)
b.
a.
plastik-
bil-
plastik- bil-
nøgle
[Plastik- [auto-schlüssel]]
'car key of plastic'
(4) a.
nøgle
[Plastik- [auto-schlüssel]]
'key for plastic car'
dun-[sove-pose]
vs. *[dun-sove]-pose
Daunen-[schlaf-sack]
*[Daunen-schlaf]-sack
'sleeping bag of down'
'bag for a down sleep'
b. [rød-vins]-glas
[Rot-wein]-glas
'glass for red wine'
vs. *rød-[vins-glas]
*Rot-[wein-glas]
'wine glass of/for red'
Vikner: The Sentence Structure of English and Danish, p. 2
Let us now return to syntax and to clauses.
It is easy to find the smallest constituents in a clause (we already know them, they are the words),
and it is easy to find the largest constituent (we already know it, it is typically the main clause).
What is difficult in constituent analysis is to find the constituents in between, i.e. the constituents
larger than the individual words and smaller than the main clause.
Take e.g. the expression French wine and cheese:
(5)
a.
b.
French wine
and
French
cheese
wine
and
cheese
Is French wine a constituent in (5)a? In (5)b? Is wine and cheese a constituent in (5)a? In (5)b?
As illustrated in (5), French and wine form a constituent, in (5)a, but not in (5)b where French and
wine are parts of two separate constituents. Conversely, wine and and and cheese form a constituent,
in (5)b, but not in (5)a, where wine is part of French wine while and cheese is not.
Can this be related to a difference in interpretation? In other words, if (6) was a sign at a
conference or in a hotel, would it be clear which kind of cheese might be served?
(6)
French wine and cheese will be served in the lounge
As we saw in (1), the ambiguity of unlockable is linked to there being two structures, one for each of
the two interpretations. The same goes for ambiguous strings of words: They may have more than one
structure.
While there are (at least) two different possible syntactic constituent structures of French wine and
cheese, there could be up to five different constituent structures of the NP (the) Swiss chocolate toy
factory:
(7)
a.
Swiss
b.
chocolate
toy
factory
c.
Swiss chocolate
w
Swiss chocolate
ew
toy
factory
toy
factory
d.
toy
factory
toy
factory
Swiss chocolate
w
e.
Swiss chocolate
Are there really five different semantic interpretations? What are they?
Vikner: The Sentence Structure of English and Danish, p. 3
Exercise
Which of the structures in (7) is most plausible constituent structure for the following?
(8)
En.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
European parliament election
local election campaign organiser
local democratic party chairman
large Japanese car seat
new English syntax teacher
Interpretations corresponding to the structures in (7)a-e are given in (9)a-e below:
(9)
En. a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
A Swiss factory that is made of chocolate and that makes toys
A Swiss factory that makes chocolate toys
A factory that makes chocolate toys which are Swiss
A factory that makes toys of Swiss chocolate
A factory that is made of Swiss chocolate and that makes toys
1.2 Constituency tests
The way to determine whether or not two or more words constitute a unit is to apply constituency
tests. If a string of words passes a constituency test, it may be assumed to be a constituent, whereas if
something does not pass a constituency test, no such conclusion may be drawn:
(10)
(Pass)
The string is a constituent
(Fail)
The string is not a constituent, OR
it's not the right kind of test.
Apply
constituency
test
In other words, for a string of words to pass a constituency test, two requirements have to be met:
(11) To pass a constituency test,
a.
the string must be a constituent (form a unit), AND
b.
the test must be the right kind of test
There are three main types of tests: movement, substitution, and deletion.
We will use the following sentence as a base example for the various constituency tests:
(12) En.
(13) Da.
The man from LA bought a used car in Berlin
Manden fra LA købte en brugt bil i Berlin
Vikner: The Sentence Structure of English and Danish, p. 4
1.2.1 Movement
Topicalisation
(also called fronting)
(14) [xxx] … … … _____ … …
(15) En. a.
b.
c.
d.
[In Berlin], the man from LA bought a used car
[A used car], the man from LA bought
in Berlin
* [Car in],
the man from LA bought a used
Berlin
* [In]
the man from LA bought a used car Berlin
(16) Da. a.
b.
c.
d.
[I Berlin]
købte manden fra LA en brugt bil
[En brugt bil] købte manden fra LA
i Berlin
* [Bil i]
købte manden fra LA en brugt
Berlin
* [I]
købte manden fra LA en brugt bil Berlin
What is wrong with (15)c is thus that car and in either do not form a constituent or that they form a
constituent of the wrong kind. Given that car forms a constituent with a and used, as shown in (15)b,
car cannot at the same time form a constituent with in.
What is wrong with (15)d is also that in either is not a constituent or that it is a constituent of the
wrong kind. Given that in IS a constituent on its own (as all individual words are constituents), it must
just be a constituent of the wrong kind.
Clefting
(17) It is/was [xxx] (who / that) … … … _____ … …
(18) En. a.
It was [in Berlin]
that the man from LA bought a used car
b.
It was [a used car]
that the man from LA bought
in Berlin
c.
It was [the man from LA] who
bought a used
in Berlin
d. * It was [the man from]
who
LA bought a used car in Berlin
e. * It was [car in]
that the man from LA bought a used
Berlin
f. * It was [bought]
that the man from LA
a used car in Berlin
(19) Da. a.
Det var [i Berlin]
manden fra LA købte en brugt bil
b.
Det var [en brugt bil]
manden fra LA købte
i Berlin
c.
Det var [manden fra LA] som
købte en brugt
i Berlin
d. * Det var [manden fra]
som
LA købte en brugt bil i Berlin
e. * Det var [bil i]
manden fra LA købte en brugt
Berlin
f. * Det var [købte]
manden fra LA
en brugt bil i Berlin
Vikner: The Sentence Structure of English and Danish, p. 5
Pseudo-clefting
(20) What … _____ … … … is/was [xxx]
(21) En. a.
Where the man from LA bought a used car
was [in Berlin]
b.
What the man from LA bought
in Berlin was [a used car]
c. * What the man from LA bought a used
Berlin was [car in]
d. * Where the man from LA bought a used car Berlin was [in]
(22) En. a.
b.
What
c.
What
d. * What
e. * What
The man from LA did buy a used car in Berlin
the man from LA did
in Berlin was [buy a used car]
the man from LA did
was [buy a used car in Berlin]
the man from LA did
a used car
was [buy] [in Berlin]
the man from LA did
a used car in Berlin was [buy]
(23) Da. a.
Der hvor manden fra LA købte en brugt bil
var [i Berlin]
b.
Det
manden fra LA købte
i Berlin var [en brugt bil]
c. * Det
manden fra LA købte en brugt
Berlin var [bil i]
d. * Der hvor manden fra LA købte en brugt bil Berlin var [i]
(24) Da. a.
b.
Det
c.
Det
d. * Det
e. * Det
Manden fra LA
købte en brugt bil i Berlin
manden fra LA gjorde
i Berlin var [at købe en brugt bil]
manden fra LA gjorde
var [at købe en brugt bil i Berlin]
manden fra LA gjorde
en brugt bil
var [at købe] [i Berlin]
manden fra LA gjorde
en brugt bil i Berlin var [at købe]
Note that in all of (22), the finite lexical verb bought (inflected for past tense) is 'split in two', i.e.
substituted by a finite version of the auxiliary verb do (inflected for past tense) AND the infinitive of
the main verb, buy. This does not only happen in pseudo-clefts, but also e.g. to emphasise the truth of
the sentence, as in (22)a.
Passivisation
(25) Someone V-ed something
→
Something was V-ed _____ (by someone)
(26) En. a.
... because [a used car] was bought
in Berlin (by the man from LA)
b. * ... because [car in]
was bought a used
Berlin (by the man from LA)
c. * ... because [car]
was bought a used
in Berlin (by the man from LA)
d. * ... because [in Berlin] was bought a used car
(by the man from LA)
(27) Da. a.
... fordi [en brugt bil] blev købt
i Berlin (af manden fra LA)
b. * ... fordi [bil i]
blev købt en brugt
Berlin (af manden fra LA)
c. * ... fordi [bil]
blev købt en brugt
i Berlin (af manden fra LA)
d. * ... fordi [i Berlin]
blev købt en brugt bil
(af manden fra LA)
Note that this test only works with an object. This is why in Berlin does not pass this test in (26)d,
although we know that in Berlin is a constituent from (15)a above.
Vikner: The Sentence Structure of English and Danish, p. 6
Heavy NP shift
(also called post-posing or extraposition)
(28) … … _____ … … … [xxx]
This test applies only to 'heavy' ('long') NP constituents. Applying heavy NP shift to 'lighter' ('shorter')
constituents is either not very good, (30), or completely ungrammatical, (31).
(29) En. a.
b.
He bought [an old, rusty, run-down car] in Berlin
He bought
in Berlin [an old, rusty, run-down car]
(30) En. a.
He bought [a used car]
b. ?? He bought _________
in Berlin
in Berlin [a used car]
(31) En. a.
b.
He bought [it]
* He bought __
in Berlin
in Berlin [it]
(32) Da. a.
b.
Han købte [en gammel, rusten og slidt bil] i Berlin
i Berlin [en gammel, rusten og slidt bil]
? Han købte
(33) Da. a.
Han købte [en brugt bil]
b. ?? Han købte _________
i Berlin
i Berlin [en brugt bil]
(34) Da. a.
b.
i Berlin
i Berlin [den]
Han købte [den]
* Han købte __
1.2.2 Substitution
Substitution by a pronoun (e.g., he/him, she/her, they/them, it) or another proform (e.g., an adverb,
here/there, or a verb phrase, such as did so):
[ The man from LA ]
(35) En. a.
b.
[ He
]
c.
[ The man from LA ]
d.
[ The man from LA ]
e.
[ The man from LA ]
f. * [ He
LA ]
g. * [ The man from LA ]
(36) Da. a.
[ Manden fra LA ]
b.
[ Han
]
c.
[ Manden fra LA ]
d.
[ Manden fra LA ]
e.
[ Manden fra LA ]
f. * [ Han
LA ]
g. * [ Manden fra LA ]
[ bought [ a used car ] ]
[ bought [ a used car ] ]
[ bought [ it
]]
[ bought [ a used car ] ]
[ did so
]
[ bought [ a used car ] ]
[ bought [ a used car ] ]
[ in
Berlin ]
[ in
Berlin ]
[ in
Berlin ]
[ there
]
[ in
Berlin ]
[ in
Berlin ]
[ there Berlin ]
[ købte
[ en brugt bil ] ]
[ købte
[ en brugt bil ] ]
[ købte
[ den
]]
[ købte
[ en brugt bil ] ]
[ gjorde det
]
[ købte
[ en brugt bil ] ]
[ købte
[ en brugt bil ] ]
[ i Berlin ]
[ i Berlin ]
[ i Berlin ]
[ der
]
[ i Berlin ]
[ i Berlin ]
[ der Berlin ]
Vikner: The Sentence Structure of English and Danish, p. 7
Substitution by a wh-element with subsequent movement to the beginning of the clause:
…
that [ the man from LA ]
(37) En. a.
b.
[
]
Who
c.
What did [ the man from LA ]
d.
Where did [ the man from LA ]
e. * Who
[
LA ]
f. * What did [ the man from LA ]
g. * Where did [ the man from LA ]
(38) Da. a.
…
at
[ manden fra LA ]
b.
købte
[
]
Hvem
c.
Hvad købte [ manden fra LA ]
d.
Hvor købte [ manden fra LA ]
e. * Hvem købte [
LA ]
f. * Hvad købte [ manden fra LA ]
g. * Hvor købte [ manden fra LA ]
[ bought [ a used car ] ]
[ bought [ a used car ] ]
[ buy
[
]]
[ buy
[ a used car ] ]
[ bought [ a used car ] ]
[ buy
[
car ] ]
[ buy
[ a used car ] ]
[ købte [ en brugt bil ] ]
[
[ en brugt bil ] ]
[
[
]]
[
[ en brugt bil ] ]
[
[ en brugt bil ] ]
[
[
bil ] ]
[
[ en brugt bil ] ]
[ in Berlin ]
[ in Berlin ] ?
[ in Berlin ] ?
[
]?
[ in Berlin ] ?
[ in Berlin ] ?
[ Berlin ] ?
[ i Berlin ]
[ i Berlin ] ?
[ i Berlin ] ?
[
]?
[ i Berlin ] ?
[ i Berlin ] ?
[ Berlin ] ?
After something has been substituted by a wh-element, this wh-element has to move to the left edge
of the clause, as in (37)b-d. Without this subsequent movement, the examples would only be possible
as so-called echo-questions:
(39) En.
The man from LA bought what in Berlin ?
(40) Da.
Manden fra
LA købte hvad i Berlin ?
1.2.3 Deletion
Only constituents (and only non-arguments) may be deleted.
(41) En. a.
[The man [ from LA ]]
b.
[The man [
]]
c.
[The man [ from LA ]]
d.
[The man [ from LA ]]
e.
[The man [ from LA ]]
f.
[The man [
]]
g. * [The
[
LA ]]
[bought [a used car]]
[bought [a used car]]
[bought [a used car]]
[bought [a used car]]
[bought [a used car]]
[bought [a used car]]
[bought [a used car]]
(42) Da. a.
[Den gamle mand [ fra LA ]]
b.
[Den gamle mand [
]]
c.
[Den gamle mand [ fra LA ]]
d.
[Den gamle mand [ fra LA ]]
e.
[Den gamle mand [ fra LA ]]
f.
[Den gamle mand [
]]
g. * [Den gamle
[
LA ]]
[ in Berlin ] [ last week ]
[ in Berlin ] [ last week ]
[ in Berlin ] [
]
[
] [ last week ]
[
][
] (2 deletions)
[
] [ last week ] (2 deletions)
[ in Berlin ] [ last week ]
[købte [en brugt bil]]
[købte [en brugt bil]]
[købte [en brugt bil]]
[købte [en brugt bil]]
[købte [en brugt bil]]
[købte [en brugt bil]]
[købte [en brugt bil]]
[ i Berlin ] [ i går ]
[ i Berlin ] [ i går ]
[ i Berlin ] [
]
[
] [ i går ]
[
][
] (2 deletions)
[
] [ i går ] (2 deletions)
[ i Berlin ] [ i går ]
As illustrated in (41)e-f, deletion is not the most reliable test since it can be applied more than once (to
different constituents).
Vikner: The Sentence Structure of English and Danish, p. 8
2.
Clause structure in tree analyses and in field analyses
A fundamental difference between various approaches to clause structure is the one between
• tree analyses like the generative analysis that I work in and also teach (Vikner 1995, 1999a,b,
2007, ..., Haegeman & Guéron 1999) and
• field analyses like the sætningsskema analysis of Danish of Diderichsen (1946, 1964) and many
others or the topologische Modell analysis of German of Drach (1937) and many others.
The difference is to which extent the parts of the clause are seen as boxes inside other boxes or as
pearls after each other on a string. It is a question of extent, as the extent can neither be 0% or 100%:
Even to Diderichsen (1946), not all constituents follow each other (e.g. the object is inside the content
field), and also in the generative analyses constituents may follow one another (otherwise trees would
only contain mothers and daughters and no sisters).
In (43), the two different analysis of Danish are shown, and in (44) the same for German:
(43) a.
CP
Spec
C'
C°
IP
Spec
I'
I°
VP
AdvP
VP
Spec
V'
V°
VP
VP
Spec
AdvP
V'
V°
b. F
Nexus field
DP
Content field
F
v
n
a
V
N
A
Nu
har
Per
igen
poleret
bilen
med ståluld
Now has
Per
again
polished
car-the
with steel wool
c. Conj. f.
Nexus field
Content field
k
n
a
v
V
N
A
om
Per
igen
har
poleret
bilen
med ståluld
if
Per
again
has
polished
car-the
with steel wool
Vikner: The Sentence Structure of English and Danish, p. 9
The generative tree structure in (43)a is compared to the simplified Diderichsen field model of
constituent order in modern Danish, Norwegian and Swedish, as illustrated in (43)b for main clauses
and in (43)c for embedded clauses.
Collapsing the Diderichsen model for the main clause with the one for the embedded clause, as
in (43)b,c, was not done by Diderichsen himself but by Platzack (1985:71, fn 5) and Heltoft
(1986:108). For more details and more references, see Bjerre, Engels, Jørgensen & Vikner (2008).
By the way, notice that the difference in (43), between tree analysis and field analysis is NOT one of
notation. (43)a can also be expressed by means of boxes or square brackets, and (43)b,c can also be
illustrated in a tree.
One difference is that in (43)b,c the number of levels and the kinds of constituents that can
occur on each level are fixed: There are three levels containing three different kinds of constituents,
namely clause – fields – slots / sætning – felter – pladser. In (43)a, on the other hand, this is not the
case at all.
Another difference is that (43)a is based on constituents, as supported by constituency tests, cf.
section 1.2. In (43)b,c, however, this is not always the case, as constituency tests will show e.g. that
part of V may form a constituent together with N.
Although I thus clearly prefer a tree analysis along the lines of (43)a, I shall nevertheless try to
develop a field based model more like (43)b,c, in section 3 below, primarily for pedagogical reasons.
In (44), there is a parallel illustration for German, first a generative tree structure in (44)a and then
the simplified field model / topological model analyses of German main and embedded clauses in
(44)b,c. For more details and more references, see Wöllstein-Leisten, Heilmann, Stepan & Vikner
(1997) or any of the recent editions of the Duden grammars (e.g. Fabricius-Hansen et al. 2005:879).
(44) a.
CP
Spec
C'
C°
IP
Spec
I'
I°
VP
AdvP
VP
Spec
V'
VP
Spec
V'
DP
Linke
Satzklammer
Vielleicht
hat
Perhaps
has
ob
if
Vorfeld
b.
c.
Mittelfeld
Peter
Peter
Peter
Peter
nie
never
nie
never
V°
ein Auto
a car
ein Auto
a car
V°
Rechte
Nachfeld
Satzklammer
poliert
polished
poliert hat
polished has
Vikner: The Sentence Structure of English and Danish, p. 10
3.
Another field analysis (but with a comparative touch)
3.1 Introduction
I would like to suggest two basic clause structures, one for Danish and one for English:
(45)
Danish:
topic
(46)
finite
verb
subject
neg / adv
verb(s)
object(s)
adv
neg / adv
verb(s)
object(s)
adv
English:
topic
finite
aux
subject
finite
aux
The intended meaning of "basic clause structure" is that I want to be able to derive from (45) and (46)
all clause types that are actually possible in the two languages.
At this point the parallels are hopefully conspicuous, even though two differences are also noticeable:
- English: "finite aux"
• Danish: "finite verb"
• Danish: only one "finite verb" circle - English: two "finite aux" circles
The three superimposed verb-circles and adv-boxes indicate that there can be one or more verbs or
adverbials after one another here (in both languages, section 3.4.2). The two superimposed objectboxes indicate that there can be one or two objects here (in both languages, section 3.4.1).
A circle denotes a position for a head ("en kerne"), i.e. (at most) an individual word, whereas
a box denotes a position for an entire phrase ("et syntagme").
(47)
a. heads:
b. phrases:
vil, spiser, spise, spist
mange elever, tomaten, med en gaffel
will, eats, eat, eaten
many pupils, the tomato, with a fork
(Actually, every phrase contains a head – e.g. with is the head of the phrase with a fork – but the heads
and phrases in (45) and (46) are the ones relevant for the word order differences that I want to address.)
Something else that I retain from the generative framework that I otherwise work within (Vikner 1995,
1999ab, 2007) is the metaphor of "syntactic movement", indicated by the arrows in (45) and (46).
The movement is why there can only be a finite verb in one of the verb circles (the finite verb moves
from one circle to the next). There are, however, also other types of movement than verb movement.
3.2 Danish in detail
The structure suggested for Danish in (45) is reminiscent of the very influential suggestions of
Diderichsen (1946, 1964, cf. also Bjerre et al. 2008). Compare (48) with the first line in (49):
Vikner: The Sentence Structure of English and Danish, p. 11
(48)
Foundation field
Nexus field
F
v
n
a
V
N
A
Saa
har
han
vist
glemt
Galocherne
her
Then
has
he
probably
forgotten
the galoshes
here
from Diderichsen (1946:162)
(49)
Content field
Danish:
F
v
n
a
V
N
A
topic
finite
verb
subject
neg / adv
verb(s)
object(s)
adv
han
c. must
contain a
subject
(unless
there is one
in topic box).
ikke
e. may
contain ikke
and/ or
medial
sentential
adverbials
spist
f. may
contain one
or more
verbs.
æblet
g. may
contain one or
two objects
(or a subject
predicate)
(or obj. plus
obj. predicate)
i går
h. may
contain one
or more
adverbials.
Derfor
a. must be
filled in all
main
clauses.
havde
b. must be
filled in all
main
clauses.
Danish = English
Danish ≠ English
3.3 English in detail
(50)
English:
topic
finite
aux
subject
Therefore
he
a. does not b. must be c. must
have to be
filled if
contain a
filled.
topic is a subject.
wh- or a
negative
element.
If no aux,
use do.
Danish ≠ English
finite
aux
had
d. must be
filled if
there is an
aux or a
not.
If no aux,
use do.
neg / adv
not
e. may
contain not
and/or
medial
sentential
adverbials
verb(s)
object(s)
adv
eaten
f. may
contain one
or more
verbs.
the apple
g. may
contain one or
two objects
(or a subject
predicate)
(or obj. plus
obj. predicate)
yesterday
h. may
contain one
or more
adverbials.
Danish = English
Vikner: The Sentence Structure of English and Danish, p. 12
3.4 Common properties Danish/English
3.4.1 Options in the object box(es)
Danish and English both have the following five different options regarding the object box(es)
(i.e. they both have the following five verb complementation patterns):
(51)
Da.
topic
finite
verb
subject
En.
topic
finite
aux
subject
finite
aux
neg / adv
verb(s)
object(s)
adv
neg / adv
verb(s)
object(s)
adv
a.
b.
no object
Hvorfor
skal
Why
must
han
he
rejse
leave
c.
d.
one object
Hvorfor
skal
Why
must
jeg
I
læse
read
bogen
the book
i dag?
today?
e.
f.
two objects
Hvorfor
havde
Why
had
hun
she
lånt
leant
Ib bilen
Joe the car
i går?
yesterday?
g.
h.
a subject predicate
Hvorfor
skal
Why
must
vi
we
være
be
flinke
nice
i dag?
today?
i.
j.
an object and an object predicate
Hvorfor
havde
de
Why
had
they
kaldt
called
Ida et fjols
Ann a fool
i går?
yesterday?
i dag?
today?
Vikner: The Sentence Structure of English and Danish, p. 13
3.4.2 Options in the verb cirle(s)
Danish and English both have the following five different options regarding the verb circle(s):
(52)
Da.
topic
finite
verb
subject
En.
topic
finite
aux
subject
a.
b.
no verb in the verb circle
Hvor
er
Peter
Where
is
Peter
c.
d.
one verb in the verb circle
Hvor
havde
Peter
Where
had
Peter
e.
two verbs in the verb circle
Hvorfor
skulle
Peter
f.
Why
g.
three verbs in the verb circle
Hvordan
kan
bilen
h.
How
i.
four verbs in the verb circle
Hvordan
burde
ulykken
j.
Why
should
can
must
Peter
the car
the car
finite
aux
neg / adv
verb(s)
object(s)
adv
neg / adv
verb(s)
object(s)
adv
i dag?
today?
egentlig
actually
efterladt
left
bilen
the car
i fredags?
last Friday?
have
købt
have
bought
en ny bil
i går?
a new car
yesterday?
være
blevet
repareret
have
been
repaired
kunne
have
været
undgået?
have
been
being
repaired
allerede?
already?
at 3:15 PM
yesterday?
Vikner: The Sentence Structure of English and Danish, p. 14
3.5 Differences Danish/English
3.5.1 Main vs. embedded clauses in general
In Danish, both the finite verb circle and the topic box must be filled in main clauses (b-d), but not in
embedded clauses (a):
(53)
Da.
topic
a. fordi
b.
c.
d.
e.
finite
verb
subject
neg / adv
Peter
Peter
Urtete
Måske
aldrig
aldrig
aldrig
aldrig
aldrig
drikker
drikker Peter
drikker Peter
Drikker Peter
verb(s)
drikker
object(s)
adv
urtete
urtete
urtete
urtete?
This property, that both the finite verb circle and the topic box must be filled in main clauses, is often
referred to as "verb second", as the finite verb must be in second position in all main clauses. Verb
second is a property common to all Germanic languages, with just one exception: English.
(Notice that in main clause yes/no-questions, (e), the topic box remains empty. The same actually goes
for English, once the complications concerning questions to be discussed in the next subsection have
been factored in.)
The arrow in (53) indicates "movement" of the finite verb from the verb circle to the finite verb circle.
This is just one possible way of representing the observation that the finite verb drikker either occurs
in the verb circle, (a), or in the finite verb circle (b-e), but never in both.
Similar arrows could have been drawn from the subject box to the topic box, to represent the
difference between (a) and (b), or from the object box to the topic box, to represent the difference
between (a) and (c).
In English, the topic box does not have to be filled in main clauses, and nor does the first finite aux
circle. The result is that the differences between main and embedded clauses are much less striking:
(54)
En.
a.
b.
c.
d.
topic
as
Herbal tea
Maybe
finite
aux
subject
Peter
Peter
Peter
Peter
finite
aux
neg / adv
never
never
never
never
verb(s)
drinks
drinks
drinks
drinks
object(s)
adv
herbal tea
herbal tea
herbal tea
Vikner: The Sentence Structure of English and Danish, p. 15
3.5.2 Topics containing a question element or a negative element
The first finite aux circle in English is only filled if topic is a question element or a negative element,
whereas there is no such restriction in Danish:
(55)
En.
a.
b.
c.
(56)
Da.
a.
b.
c.
topic
When
Never
Perhaps
topic
Hvornår
Aldrig
Måske
finite
aux
had
had
finite
verb
havde
havde
havde
finite
aux
subject
Peter
Peter
Peter
neg / adv
seen
seen
seen
had
subject
verb(s)
verb(s)
neg / adv
Peter
Peter
Peter
set
set
set
object(s)
adv
this mess?
such a mess
such a mess before
object(s)
adv
det her rod?
sådan et rod
sådan et rod før
(The property that the first finite aux circle in English is filled if topic is a question element is also
found in French.)
Danish and English have in common that the first finite circle is only filled in main clause questions,
and not in embedded questions:
(57)
En.
a.
(58)
Da.
a.
topic
finite
aux
(I
when
asked)
topic
(Jeg
hvornår
spurgte)
finite
aux
subject
Peter
finite
verb
had
subject
Peter
neg / adv
verb(s)
seen
neg / adv
verb(s)
object(s)
adv
this mess
object(s)
adv
havde set det her rod?
(If the finite verb is not in the first verb circle, then it must be in another one. The different placements
of had vs. havde in (57) & (58) will be discussed in the next two subsections.)
Vikner: The Sentence Structure of English and Danish, p. 16
3.5.3 Finite verb circle vs. finite aux circle
When the topic is a question element or a negative element, then the first finite aux circle must be
filled in English. Furthermore, as it is a finite aux circle, then it has to be filled by an auxiliary. If
there is no auxiliary, then one has to be inserted, namely do:
(59)
En.
a.
b.
c.
d.
topic
finite
aux
Where
did
At no
did
point
In York
Yesterday
finite
aux
subject
neg / adv
verb(s)
object(s)
Peter
Peter
finally
actually
find
leave
a new car?
the room
Peter
Peter
finally
finally
found
found
a new car
a new car
adv
The first finite aux circle in English corresponds to the finite verb circle in Danish, and as it is a finite
verb circle, any finite verb can occur here (of course including auxiliaries). Therefore Danish has
nothing that corresponds to do-insertion:
(60)
Da.
a.
b.
c.
d.
topic
Hvor
På intet
tidspunkt
I Århus
I går
finite
verb
subject
neg / adv
verb(s)
object(s)
fandt
forlod
Peter
Peter
endelig
faktisk
en ny bil?
lokalet
fandt
fandt
Peter
Peter
endelig
endelig
en ny bil
en ny bil
adv
Vikner: The Sentence Structure of English and Danish, p. 17
3.5.4 There is no second finite circle in Danish
In Danish, there is only one finite verb circle. The finite verb either occurs in the verb circle(s), in all
embedded clauses, (a-b), or in the finite verb circle, in all main clauses, (c-f) (cf. section 3.5.1 above):
(61)
Da.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
topic
finite
verb
fordi
fordi
Derfor
Derfor
Hvorfor
Hvorfor
stiger
vil
stiger
vil
subject
antallet
antallet
antallet
antallet
antallet
antallet
neg / adv
verb(s)
formentlig
formentlig
formentlig
formentlig
formentlig
formentlig
stiger
vil stige
object(s)
adv
hvert år
næste år
hvert år
næste år
hvert år?
næste år?
stige
stige
In English, on the other hand, there are two finite aux circles. A finite main verb has to occur in the
verb circle(s), (a,c,e), as the two circles further left only admit auxiliaries. A finite auxiliary either
occurs in the second finite aux circle, (b,d) or in the first one, (e), depending on what is in the topic
box (cf. sections 3.5.2 & 3.5.3 above):
(62)
En.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
topic
finite
aux
as
as
Therefore
Therefore
Why
does
Why
will
subject
finite
aux
the number
the number will
the number
the number will
the number
the number
neg / adv
presumably
presumably
presumably
presumably
presumably
presumably
verb(s)
increases
increase
increases
increase
increase
increase
object(s)
adv
every year
next year
every year
next year
every year?
next year?
In other words, here we have a difference between the languages in the second half of the diagramme,
which is the part where I said that the two languages are alike (cf. sections 3.2 & 3.3 above):
In both languages the verb circle(s) contains all non-finite verbs, but in English it also contains finite
main verbs, whereas in Danish, it also contains the finite verb in all embedded clauses. This difference
in the verb circle(s) does however follow completely from the differences in the first half of the
diagramme, concerning the finite circles (cf. sections 3.5.1-3.5.3 above).
Vikner: The Sentence Structure of English and Danish, p. 18
3.5.5 not can trigger do-insertion, ikke cannot
In English, not requires an auxiliary, (a,c), as opposed to e.g. never, (d). As above, if there is no
auxiliary, then one is inserted, namely do, (c):
(63)
En.
a.
b.
c.
d.
topic
finite
aux
Therefore
Therefore
Therefore
Therefore
finite
aux
subject
the number will
the number will
the number did
the number
neg / adv
not
never
not
never
verb(s)
object(s)
increase
increase
increase
increased
adv
next year
again
last year
again
In Danish, neither ikke nor aldrig requires an auxiliary, (c,d):
(64)
Da.
a.
b.
c.
d.
topic
Derfor
Derfor
Derfor
Derfor
finite
verb
vil
vil
steg
steg
subject
antallet
antallet
antallet
antallet
neg / adv
ikke
aldrig
ikke
aldrig
verb(s)
stige
stige
object(s)
adv
næste år
igen
sidste år
igen
Vikner: The Sentence Structure of English and Danish, p. 19
3.6 Concluding remarks
Compared to the descriptions of Danish-English differences found in most Danish gymnasium (and
higher) level grammars of English, the analysis set out in (45) and (46) above is more complicated in
that it introduced both a topic position and a set of finite verb positions for both languages.
On the plus side, I would like to claim that all (and only) the different possible clauses that are
possible in the two languages can be derived from (45) and (46).
Consider as an example how the various possible sequences of verbs and adverbials follow (more or
less) straightforwardly, without having to resort to setting out rules for Danish which are misleading
and which have to be revised or qualified one or two pages later:
På engelsk må et adverbium ikke placeres mellem et verbum og dets objekt, i modsætning til dansk
(Herskind & Pedersen 2002:36)
Lette adverbialled placeres ofte umiddelbart foran hovedverbet (på dansk er placeringen efter
hovedverbet).
(Ljung & Ohlander 1996:165)
Both of these formulations would incorrectly allow for e.g.
(65) Da. a. *
Peter havde repareret faktisk bilen i går
MAIN V
b. * ... fordi Peter
ADV
OBJ
reparerede faktisk bilen i går
MAIN V
ADV
OBJ
However, as follows from the analysis above (section 3.5.1), this order is only possible if two
conditions obtain, namely that the main verb has to be finite and that the clause has to be a main
clause:
(66) Da. a.
Peter reparerede
MAIN V
b.
faktisk bilen i går
ADV
OBJ
Derfor reparerede Peter faktisk bilen i går
MAIN V
ADV
OBJ
At this point, I should also admit that for certain phenomena, further assumptions are needed that I
have not been able to discuss here, e.g.
• light negation in English (Why didn't Peter leave?)
• light objects in Danish (Peter så ham ikke)
• negative objects in Danish (Peter havde ingen penge fået)
• verb particles in both languages (Jeg smed bogen ud, I threw out the book, I threw the book out).
Another potential advantage that I have not discussed in any detail is the compatibility with analyses
of other related languages, e.g. French, German and Icelandic (cf. Almen Sprogforståelse):
• French and Icelandic have two finite circles like English, but finite verb circles like Danish.
• Icelandic has obligatory filling of topic and first finite verb circle in main clauses, French does not.
• German would be much like Danish, but with the verb circle(s) at the very end.
(cf. e.g.Vikner 1999b, Wöllstein-Leisten & al. 1997).
Vikner: The Sentence Structure of English and Danish, p. 20
References
Bjerre, Tavs, Eva Engels, Henrik Jørgensen & Sten Vikner: 2008, "Points of convergence between
functional and formal approaches to syntactic analysis" in Working Papers in Scandinavian
Syntax 82, 131-166. <www.hum.au.dk/engelsk/engsv/papers/bjer08a.pdf>
Davidsen-Nielsen, Niels & Peter Harder: 2000, "Constituent order in English and Danish",
Copenhagen Studies in Language 25, 39-71.
Diderichsen, Paul: 1946, Elementær Dansk Grammatik, Gyldendal, Copenhagen. 3rd edition 1962,
Reprinted 1984.
Diderichsen, Paul: 1964, "Sætningsleddene og deres stilling - tredive år efter" in Danica, Studier i
dansk sprog til Aage Hansen 3. september 1964. Reprinted in Diderichsen (1966:364-379).
Diderichsen, Paul: 1966, Helhed og Struktur, G.E.C. Gads Forlag, Copenhagen.
Drach, Erich: 1937, Grundgedanken der deutschen Satzlehre, Diesterweg, Frankfurt am Main.
Reprinted 1963, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine, Peter Gallmann, Peter Eisenberg, Reinhard Fiehler, Jörg Peters, Damaris
Nübling, Irmhild Barz, & Thomas A. Fritz. 2005. Grammatik der deutschen
Gegenwartssprache, Duden vol. 4, 7th edition, Bibliographisches Institut, Mannheim.
Greenbaum, Sidney: 1996, The Oxford English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haegeman, Liliane & Jacqueline Guéron: 1999, English Grammar – A Generative Perspective.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Heltoft, Lars: 1986, "Topologi og syntaks. En revision af Paul Diderichsens sætningsskema" in Lars
Heltoft & John E. Andersen (eds.), Sætningsskemaet og dets stilling - 50 år efter, Nydanske
Studier og Almen Kommunikationsteori, NyS 16/17, 105-130.
Herskind, Aase & Uffe Gravers Pedersen: 2002, Engelsk Grammatik med Synonymer, Gyldendal,
Copenhagen (3rd edition).
Hjulmand, Lise-Lotte & Helge Schwarz. 2009. A concise contrastive grammar of English for Danish
students. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.
Ljung, Magnus & Sölve Ohlander: 1996, The Grammar, trsl. Katalin Tersztyánsky & Lone Thomsen,
Gyldendal, Copenhagen.
Platzack, Christer: 1985, "A Survey of Generative Analyses of the Verb Second Phenomenon in
Germanic" in Nordic Journal of Linguistics 8.1, 49-73.
Vikner, Sten: 1995, Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic Languages,: Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Vikner, Sten: 1999a, "Ledstillingen i dansk og government & binding" in Per Anker Jensen & Peter
Skadhauge (eds.), Sætningsskemaet i generativ lingvistik, pp. 83-110. Institut for
Erhvervssproglig Informatik og Kommunikation, Syddansk Universitet, Kolding.
<www.hum.au.dk/engelsk/engsv/papers/vikn99a.pdf>
Vikner, Sten: 1999b, "V°-til-I° flytning og personfleksion i alle tempora" in Islenskt mál 19, 81-128.
<www.hum.au.dk/engelsk/engsv/papers/vikn99b.pdf>.
Vikner, Sten: 2007, "Teoretisk og komparativ syntaks" in Henrik Jørgensen & Peter Widell (eds.), Det
bedre argument - Festskrift til Ole Togeby, 7. marts 2007, Wessel & Huitfeld, Århus, pp. 469480. <www.hum.au.dk/engelsk/engsv/papers/vikn07a.pdf>
Wöllstein-Leisten, Angelika, Axel Heilmann, Peter Stepan, & Sten Vikner: 1997, Deutsche
Satzstruktur, Stauffenburg, Tübingen.
Vikner: The Sentence Structure of English and Danish, p. 21
Appendix: The British National Corpus
This demonstration will find examples of the verb visit, to illustrate a task where students have to find
out whether a given verb is intransitive or intransitive and whether it takes more than one object and
what type of object that might be. The idea is that students use the corpus to find "real life" examples
instead of inventing them or looking in dictionaries. We often use corpora in our own research, and
not only (but also) when people question whether native speakers "really" do use a particular syntactic
structure.
Go to http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/, which is the Brigham Young University interface with the British
National Corpus (BNC).
(You should register to use the web site, as only 10-15 searches are possible without registration.
Registration is free, however, and it does not generate spam.)
There is a box right under "search string", top left of the main page, into which you can type your
search. Type in visit and press the search button (or just press "enter"). The result is that there are
12327 examples of the word visit in the corpus.
(To see the result of a particular search, you may have to click the word you searched. The result is at
first only seen in the lower right corner of the browser window, but when you move the cursor there, it
grows and takes up most of the window. To get it back to its original size, move the cursor to the left
edge of the window.)
Vikner: The Sentence Structure of English and Danish, p. 22
Now scroll down and look at the examples. You could invite the students to notice that many of the
examples are of a noun rather than a verb. E.g.:
CH1 W_newsp_tabloid
A panic-stricken Julie immediately cancelled a planned visit to the Cannes Film Festival ...
In order to find only verbal examples of visit, you need to restrict your search to the appropriate word
class. Click on the question mark immediately right of the search box to get more information (this
gets you to the same page as http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/help/syntax_e.asp). The first three search types
under "Combinations of preceding" (which is the second heading) are relevant. The best search type
is the third, which will tell you to enter e.g.
[visit].[v*]
and this will get you the choice between five different searches, of the five verbal forms visit, visited,
visiting, visits, and visitin'. Now click one of these five forms to see the search result.
Once you have a list of results, clicking on the reference letters/numbers to the left of the example will
reveal more of the context, and also the source of the example. Students will need to do this, both in
order to be able to copy and paste the example (you can not copy in the lists themselves) and to be
able to copy and paste the source information.
(It is often interesting to note whether the example is from spoken or written language, or from formal
or informal language, etc. You could also show them that it is possible to specify text types on the left
edge, ranging from sermons, S_sermon, to e-mails, W_email.)
The following shows three relevant examples of visit in the required format, with the verb itself
underlined and in bold and with the subcategorised elements (i.e. the objects) underlined. It also
includes source information. We should not be too critical regarding the formatting of the source
information, since the BNC itself is not always consistent.
The doctor had visited the man earlier in the day
(BNC: A classic English crime. Heald, Tim. London: Pavilion Books Ltd, 1990.)
Only 55 per cent of registered voters visited the ballot box in June 1987.
(BNC: Daily Telegraph, elect. edn. of 1992-04-04.)
Actually I visited somebody the other day.
(BNC: 15 conversations recorded by `Frederick' (PS0A8) between 10 and 15 Jan 1992 with
10 informants)
Notes and hints for students:
• Although the BNC contains 100 million words, it is still a finite language sample (of British
usage) and all the possibilities that exist in the language need not be represented. You are
therefore welcome to give your own example sentences illustrating points that cannot be found in
the BNC.
• The word class tagging has been done automatically; the corpus is not foolproof and the
computer won't think for you.
Vikner: The Sentence Structure of English and Danish, p. 23
The same website at Brigham Young University uses the same kind of interface to the Corpus of
Contemporary American English (COCA) as well as a Spanish and a Portuguese corpus. See the
various corpora and their sizes under http://corpus.byu.edu/
Similar public corpora for Danish and German are available under http://ordnet.dk/korpusdk and
http://www.ids-mannheim.de/cosmas2-web/ respectively.
Finally, here are the two
syntax books we use here:
Vikner: The Sentence Structure of English and Danish, p. 24