Log In
Or create an account ->
Imperial Library
Home
About
News
Upload
Forum
Help
Login/SignUp
Index
Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Acknowledgements
Contents
Abbreviations of linguistic terms
Abbreviations of sources
Languages and the periods they cover
List of Tables
Introduction
Part 1: A synchronic analysis of 13th century relative clauses in the Nordic languages
1 Choice of Old Norse and Middle Danish data
1.1 Choice of Old Norse data
1.2 Choice of Middle Danish data
2 What is a relative clause?
2.1 The syntax of relative complexes – basic assumptions
2.2 Typology and delineation
2.2.1 Definition
2.2.2 Free relative clauses and correlative clauses
2.2.3 Adverbial clauses
2.2.4 Non-restrictive relative clauses
2.2.5 Conclusion
2.3 Marking NPREL
2.4 Relative clauses in Modern Norwegian (with notes on the other Scandinavian languages)
2.4.1 Some methodological remarks
2.4.2 Som-insertion in Modern Norwegian
2.4.3 Free relative clauses in Modern Norwegian
2.4.4 Adverbial clauses in Modern Norwegian
2.4.5 Comparative clauses
3 Complementation or adjunction?
3.1 Introduction
3.2 The determiner-complement (D+CP) analysis
3.2.1 Introduction
3.2.2 The headway-argument
3.2.3 Other candidates for a D+CP-analysis: Comparatives, equatives and degree clauses
3.3 The adjunct analysis
3.3.1 Adjuncts are syntactically non-obligatory
3.3.2 RCs are like adjectives
3.3.3 Agreement between the determiner and the relative antecedent
3.3.4 Choice of determiner
3.3.5 Conclusion
4 A short introduction to Old Norse relative clauses
5 Referential properties of Old Norse relative complexes
5.1 RC-antecedents in Óláfs saga hins Helga: Some statistics
5.2 Reference, uniqueness and specificity
5.3 Sá in non-relative contexts
5.3.1 Sá as an anaphoric demonstrative
5.3.2 Sá vs. hinn as a preadjectival determiner
5.4 Uniqueness and specificity in relative contexts
5.5 ON sá versus the suffixed definite article –inn in relative contexts
5.6 Conclusion so far (and two intriguing examples)
5.7 Referential properties of sá in relative contexts
5.7.1 Non-specific relative complexes
5.7.1.1 The potential referent is a kind: sá in non-specific kind-reading relative complexes
5.7.1.2 The potential referent is an individual: sá in non-specific individual-reading relative complexes
5.7.2 Specific relative complexes
5.7.2.1 Sá in unique and specific relative complexes
5.7.2.2 Sá in non-unique and specific relative complexes
5.7.3 Sá in non-restrictive RCs
5.7.4 Scope relations between sá and other determiners
5.8 Referential properties of Middle Danish thæn in relative contexts
5.8.1 Referential properties of thæn in Eriks sællandske lov
5.8.2 Referential properties of thæn in Jyske lov
5.9 Concluding remarks
6 Does Old Norse have a relative pronoun?
6.1 Introduction
6.2 ‘Learned-style’ relative pronouns
6.3 Maling (1977): ON resumptive pronouns are underlyingly relative pronouns
6.4 Sá – a relative pronoun?
6.5 Arguments against treating sá as a relative pronoun
6.5.1 No arbitrary rules for deleting relative pronouns
6.5.2 Complementarity with main clause elements: no relative complex. has both a pre- and a postnominal sá
6.5.3 Case properties
6.5.4 Relative pronouns cannot be modified by adjectives
6.6 Other possibilities: sá generated to the left of the RC
6.7 Relative pronouns in Middle Danish and Old Swedish
6.8 Conclusion
7 Free relative clauses and correlatives
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Old Norse relative clauses introduced by bare demonstrative: FRs or semi-FRs?
7.3 ‘True’ FRs
7.4 Correlative RCs in Old Norse?
8 Locational clauses
9 Temporal clauses
9.1 Do temporal clauses have a relative structure?
9.2 Er – relative or temporal complementizer?
Part 2: A diachronic analysis of relative clauses in Middle Norwegian, Younger Middle Danish and beyond
10 Choice of post-1300 Norwegian data
11 W-pronouns in relative contexts
11.1 A brief recapitulation: W-RCs in Old Norse
11.2 W- and d-pronouns in relative contexts in Germanic
11.3 Native Germanic w-pronouns in relative contexts: relative or indefinite pronouns?
11.4 Relative w-pronouns in the post-1300 data
11.4.1 Huar as a relative pronoun
11.4.2 Hwilkin
11.4.2.1 Old Norse hvílíkr
11.4.2.2 The different functions of Middle Norwegian hwilkin in relative contexts
11.4.2.3 Hwilkin as a relative pronoun
11.4.3 R-compounds
11.4.4 Conclusion
11.5 Free relative clauses
11.5.1 Introduction
11.5.2 Free relatives or w-RCs in Middle Norwegian? Possible criteria
11.5.3 An analysis of Middle Norwegian huat in relative contexts
11.5.4 FR-pronouns vs. interrogative pronouns
11.6 Why are w-pronouns marginal in Norwegian relative contexts?
11.7 W-pronouns in relative contexts in Middle Danish
11.7.1 W-pronouns in relative contexts in Eriks sællandske lov
11.7.1.1 Hvær
11.7.1.2 Hvilkin
11.7.1.3 Hva
11.7.1.4 Hvat
11.7.1.5 Other possible correlative constructions
11.7.2 W-pronouns in relative contexts in Jyske lov
11.7.2.1 Hwylk
11.7.2.2 Hwo
11.7.2.3 Hwat
11.7.2.4 Adverbial FRs
11.7.3 Concluding remarks
12 Then in Middle Norwegian and beyond
12.1 Then as a uniqueness-marking adjectival article
12.2 The fate of non-unique sá
12.2.1 Then and non-unique quantifiers
12.2.2 Non-unique, specific then
12.3 Simple definites – typical of relative contexts?
12.4 Conclusion
13 Relative complementizers in the Nordic languages
13.1 Is/er/ær
13.2 Sem/sum/som
13.3 þar/ther/thær/der
13.3.1 Introduction
13.3.2 Ther as a relative complementizer in Middle Norwegian?
13.3.3 Thær in East Nordic
14 0-RCs in Middle Norwegian – an introduction
14.1 Definition
14.2 Complementizerless constructions that are not 0-RCs
14.2.1 The apo koinou construction
14.2.1.1 Apo koinou in Germanic
14.2.1.2 Apo koinou in Old Norse
14.2.1.3 Apo koinou in Middle Norwegian and Early Modern Norwegian
14.2.1.4 A short note on apo koinou in Middle Danish
14.2.2 Subject relative clauses with a temporal head
14.2.3 Relative clauses with þetta bref as antecedent
14.2.4 Conclusion
14.3 0-RCs in the literature
14.3.1 0-RCs in other Germanic languages
14.3.1.1 Swedish and Danish
14.3.1.2 English
14.4 0-RCs in Old Norse? The ‘tip-of-the-iceberg’-theory
15 0-RCs in Middle Norwegian and Middle Danish – a descriptive account
15.1 0-RCs 1350–1400
15.2 FRs 1350–1400
15.3 Temporal clauses 1350–1400
15.4 Conclusion 1350–1400
15.5 0-RCs 1400–1540
15.6 RCs with w-antecedents and FRs 1400–1540
15.6.1 RCs with huar as antecedent 1400–1540
15.6.2 Free relative clauses 1400–1540
15.7 Comparative clauses
15.8 Temporal clauses
15.8.1 Er and som as temporal complementizers
15.8.2 Temporal main clause elements reanalysed as temporal complementizers
15.8.2.1 Reanalysis of þá/tha
15.8.2.2 Reanalysis of main clause temporal nouns
15.8.2.3 Then tidh
15.8.2.4 Fyrsta
15.8.2.5 Reanalysis of main clause prepositions: til þess er and frá því er
15.8.3 Når-clauses
15.8.4 Conclusion
15.9 0-RCs in Middle Danish
15.9.1 0-RCs in Eriks sællandske lov
15.9.2 Complementizers in temporal RCs in Eriks sællandske lov
15.9.3 0-RCs in Jyske lov
15.9.4 Complementizers in temporal RCs in Jyske lov
16 Theoretical approaches to 0-RCs
16.1 Predictability (Wasow et al. 2011)
16.2 Monoclausality/integration
16.2.1 Fox & Thompson (2007)
16.2.2 Weinert (2004)
16.3 0-RCs are more dependent on the antecedent (Hawkins 2004)
16.4 Prosodic factors (Jaeger 2006)
16.5 Division of labour – where does syntax end and non-syntax start?
17 An analysis of 0-RCs in Middle Norwegian and Middle Danish
17.1 Syntactic environments for 0-RCs
17.1.1 Relative clauses headed by an antecedent featuring a demonstrative
17.1.2 Relative clauses headed by a w-pronoun/FRs
17.1.3 Lack of complementizer insertion in non-relative contexts
17.1.4 Conclusion so far
17.2 Theoretical approaches to 0-RCs tested on the Middle Norwegian data
17.2.1 Monoclausality (Fox & Thompson 2007)
17.2.2 Preference hierarchy for subjects of 0-marked clauses (Hawkins 2004)
17.2.3 Predictability revisited (Wasow et al. 2011)
17.2.3.1 Predictability of then and universal quantifiers
17.2.3.2 Predictability of w-antecedents
17.2.4 Some concluding remarks
17.3 Semantic characteristics of relative complexes with 0-RCs
17.3.1 Inclusiveness/maximalization
17.3.2 Superlatives and adjectives, non-restrictivity
17.3.3 Comparison between Middle Norwegian and Middle Danish
17.4 The tip-of-the-iceberg hypothesis revisited
17.5 Why 1400?
17.5.1 A more fixed word order
17.5.2 Increase in the predictability of simple definites
17.5.3 Loss of er as a lexical item
17.6 The subsequent development: The ‘syntactification’ of 0-RCs
17.6.1 Syntactification
17.6.2 Obligatory som in subject relative clauses
17.6.2.1 Disambiguation and the loss of stylistic fronting
17.6.2.2 The subject requirement
17.6.3 Optional som in non-subject relative clauses
18 Summary and some concluding remarks
References
← Prev
Back
Next →
← Prev
Back
Next →