Head Conjuncts: Evidence from
Old Swedish
Erik M. Petzell
It is sometimes taken for granted that heads as well as phrases may
form coordinate conjuncts. Still, what looks like a head may be a
phrase with only the head visible. This loophole is shut, however,
when we turn to Old Swedish stylistic fronting. In certain contexts,
only single-word expressions are fronted, which leads to the conclu-
sion that head fronting is indeed going on. When these heads originate
in a coordinate structure, they must constitute the entire first conjunct,
and cannot be part of an elliptic phrasal conjunct; otherwise, the ellipsis
is not properly licensed.
Keywords: head conjuncts, stylistic fronting, PF movement, Old Swed-
ish, coordinate asymmetries, remnant movement
1 Introduction
This article deals with the size of coordinate conjuncts. More specifically, it aims to answer the
following question: can conjuncts be smaller than phrases—that is, heads? In the previous litera-
ture, it has been maintained that head conjuncts indeed exist (Borsley 2005, te Velde 2006, Zhang
2010). If this were correct, any theory of coordination that presupposes that conjuncts are always
phrases (see, e.g., Kayne 1994, and similar approaches as in Johannessen 1998) would have to
be rejected.
However, I will show that unambiguous head conjuncts are harder to come by than appears
to be the case at first. What looks like head coordination could in fact be coordination of phrases
that have been vacated of everything except the head prior to being moved to the left (remnant
movement). In order to find truly nonphrasal conjuncts, I turn to the Scandinavian construction
known as stylistic fronting (SF). In a subtype of SF that occurs in Old Swedish, the fronting
takes place in the presence of an overt (albeit pronominal) subject. In this particular context, no
unambiguous phrases (i.e., units larger than a single word) are ever fronted, only single words;
see (1). Here, two such elements, the nonfinite verb ofra ‘sacrifice’ (in (1a)) and the simplex
object Èianist ‘service’ (in (1b)), have moved from their base position in the V domain to the
left of the finite verb. Remnant movement of a phrase (as suggested by Franco (2009) and Ott
(2009) for SF in general) cannot be justified here, since nothing that is clearly a phrase is ever
targeted. Head movement is thus the only possible analysis.
This research is funded by the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation (KAW, grant 2011.0245) through the Swedish
Academy. The article has benefited greatly from two anonymous reviews. Thanks also to Tomas Riad for prosodic advice.
Linguistic Inquiry, Volume 48, Number 1, Winter 2017
129–157
(cid:2) 2017 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Published under
a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0) license.
doi: 10.1162/ling_a_00237
129
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
/
l
i
/
n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
4
8
1
1
2
9
2
0
1
7
6
7
5
/
l
i
n
g
_
a
_
0
0
2
3
7
p
d
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
130
E R I K M . P E T Z E L L
(1) a. Èa han ofraj
wilde
as he sacrifice.INF wanted.PST
‘as he wanted to make an offering on a holiday’
(Fleg:3)
tj vm en høghtiLes dagh
on a high.time day
b. +n han Èianistj for ma ei
if he service can
not
‘if he cannot fulfill any (military) service’
(MEL:KB:XX)
tj vppe halda
uphold.INF
I will argue that the pronominal subject cliticizes to the complementizer (following Platzack
1988), thereby not disturbing the required adjacency between the finite elements (i.e., the comple-
mentizer and the finite verb) and the fronted element. This adjacency requirement (originally
formulated by Bo’kovic´ (2001) and modified slightly here) is, in a way, as puzzling as a purely
descriptive empty-subject requirement; nevertheless, the adjacency account makes correct predic-
tions about the distribution of SF that reference to empty subjects cannot.
Sometimes, the fronted heads in clauses with cliticized subjects originate in a coordinate
structure; this is shown in (2), where the first of two conjoined nonfinite verbs (which share the
sentence-final objects) is stylistically fronted.
(2) ath iak saalthj
haffwer
sold.PTC have.PRS
tj ok vinlegha vplathit minom elskelegom
and amicably leased.PTC my.DAT beloved.DAT
that I
moderbrodher Karl Styrkarsson allan min +rffdadel
i Westraarse
uncle
Karl Styrkarsson all.ACC my inheritance in Westraarse
‘that I have sold and amicably made available to my beloved uncle Karl Styrkarsson
all my inheritance in Va¨stera˚s’
(SDHK:16663)
I will argue that SF is an operation that takes place after Spell-Out, in PF (following SigurLsson
(2010) and also drawing on ideas put forward by Egerland (2013)). Consequently, although the
coordinate split in (2) appears to violate the Coordinate Structure Constraint (CSC; first formulated
by Ross (1967)), because the entire first conjunct moves to the left, stranding the rest of the
coordinate structure, narrow syntax, where the CSC applies, is not involved in the actual fronting
of the first conjunct. Still, what leads up to the fronting is certainly syntactically relevant. In order
to feed the PF component proper material for SF in clauses with a pronominal subject, the syntactic
component needs to be able to derive a coordinate structure in which the first conjunct is a head.
If it were only able to derive phrasal conjuncts, (2) would not be possible.
Certainly, the fronted head in (2) could be part of a phrasal conjunct, out of which it has been
extracted; indeed, unilateral extraction from the first conjunct, usually referred to as a violation of
the across-the-board restriction (first described by Ross (1967)), is attested in other contexts in
older Swedish—for instance, relativization (Magnusson (Petzell) 2007, Petzell 2010). However,
such an analysis predicts that SF of conjunct-internal material should occur in general, which is
not the case. Also (and crucially), a phrasal first conjunct in (2) would contain a gap corresponding
to the shared object. Since such gaps need to be prosodically licensed locally by the governing
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
/
l
i
/
n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
4
8
1
1
2
9
2
0
1
7
6
7
5
/
l
i
n
g
_
a
_
0
0
2
3
7
p
d
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
H E A D C O N J U N C T S : E V I D E N C E F R O M O L D S W E D I S H
131
verb (Hartmann 2000, te Velde 2006), the fronting of saalth ‘sold.PTC’ (even if it does occur in
PF) is predicted to be impossible, contrary to fact.
2 Outline
The article is organized as follows. I begin in section 3 with an overview of various coordinate
data that appear to indicate that a conjunct can be smaller than a phrase. I argue, however, that
while nonphrasal status is certainly feasible in many cases, unambiguous examples are hard to
come by. In section 4, I address SF in Scandinavian, directing special attention toward Old
Swedish. Here, heads as well as phrases can be stylistically fronted, but in clauses with pronominal
subjects, only heads can be targeted. This particular context serves as a fruitful testing ground
for conjunct size, more specifically when SF and asymmetric coordinate extraction conspire.
Whether such extraction constitutes an ATB violation (extraction of part of a conjunct) or a CSC
violation (extraction of a whole conjunct) is the topic of section 5. Only the former analysis has
independent empirical support. However, it can be questioned, given what is known about certain
prosodic requirements of coordinate ellipsis; it is also weakened by the fact that no other types
of unilateral extraction of conjunct parts occur with SF. The clue to distinguishing between the
two alternatives is the locus, as it were, of SF. If we assume that this fronting takes place after
Spell-Out, an assumption that is independently supported, the whole-conjunct approach is the
only one possible: in PF, coordinate asymmetries would be irrelevant, unlike the demand for
prosodic licensing. I thus conclude that heads may indeed be conjuncts. Section 6 summarizes
the findings of the article.
3 Alleged Head Conjuncts
In this section, I review coordinate structures that have been (or could be) claimed to consist of
head conjuncts. First, I discuss Borsley’s (2005) critique of Kayne’s (1994) account of object
sharing in coordination (section 3.1); then, I briefly consider coordinate compounds (section 3.2).
In neither case is the head analysis called for.
3.1 Verbs Sharing an Object
Although the example in (3a) at first appears to involve the coordination of two verbal heads
([V0 criticized], [V0 insulted]) sharing an object ([DP his boss]), the structure must, according to
Kayne (1994:61) ‘‘include an empty category’’; see (3b).
(3) a. John criticized and insulted his boss.
(Kayne 1994:61)
b. John criticized [e]i . . . [his boss]i
(Kayne 1994:61)
Kayne’s conclusion is forced by his Linear Correspondence Axiom, which is incompatible with
heads being conjuncts (1994:59). Thus, in (3b), there is a phrasal conjunct comprising a verbal
head and an invisible object ([VP criticized [e]]). Kayne’s assumption of an empty category is
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
/
l
i
/
n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
4
8
1
1
2
9
2
0
1
7
6
7
5
/
l
i
n
g
_
a
_
0
0
2
3
7
p
d
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
132
E R I K M . P E T Z E L L
criticized by Borsley (2005:471), who takes ‘‘empty category’’ to mean deletion. If an example
such as (4a) is derived through deletion of the first object (see (4c)), (4a) should mean the same
thing as (4b), where both objects are explicit. But, as Borsley notes, ‘‘the meanings are different’’
(2005:472).
(4) a. Hobbs criticized and insulted many people.
(Borsley 2005:471)
b. Hobbs criticized many people and insulted many people. ((cid:2) (4a))
(Borsley 2005:471)
c. Hobbs criticized many people and insulted many people
Borsley’s critique presupposes a very specific interpretation of the notion of empty category.
However, it is not clear why an empty nominal slot in a coordinate structure would always
represent a deleted full DP. In fact, evidence from Swedish suggests that there must be different
types of empty elements in coordination, depending on the nature of the shared element. As
shown in (5)–(6), the sharing of an object between two verb forms can come about in different
ways. In contexts where an object in the first conjunct can be coreferential with a pronoun in the
second conjunct (as in (5a)), a shared object can follow either the first (see (5b)) or the second
conjunct (see (5c)). In contrast, when it is not possible to use such a pronominal object (as in
(6a)), a shared object needs to follow the second conjunct (see (6c);1 cf. the ungrammatical (6b)).
I will use the label pro to refer to the empty elements that covary with pronouns (such as the
empty object after la¨ste ‘read.PST’ in (5b)).2 Note that none of the examples involving a shared
or pronominalized object (i.e., (5a–c), (6c)) has the same meaning as a corresponding example
containing an explicit full DP (see (5d), (6d)).
(5) a. Han ko¨pte
he
en bok och la¨ste
den.
bought.PST a book and read.PST it
b. Han ko¨pte
en bok och la¨ste.
c. Han ko¨pte
he
he
bought.PST a book and read.PST
en bok.
och la¨ste
bought.PST and read.PST a book
d. Han ko¨pte
en bok och la¨ste
bought.PST a book and read.PST a book
he
en bok. ((cid:2) (5a–c))
(6) a. *Han ko¨pte
he
dem.
bought.PST few books and read.PST them
bo¨cker och la¨ste
fa˚
b. *Han ko¨pte
fa˚
bo¨cker och la¨ste.
he
bought.PST few books and read.PST
1 Such sharing to the right, as it were, is commonly called right node raising (RNR), a term introduced by Postal
(1974). The specific prosodic requirements of RNR are addressed in section 5.3.
2 Coordination is not the only domain in which pro occurs in Swedish; in parasitic gap constructions, the empty
element is referentially restricted in the same way as empty elements in noninitial conjuncts (see Engdahl 2001:129ff.).
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
/
l
i
/
n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
4
8
1
1
2
9
2
0
1
7
6
7
5
/
l
i
n
g
_
a
_
0
0
2
3
7
p
d
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
H E A D C O N J U N C T S : E V I D E N C E F R O M O L D S W E D I S H
133
c. Han ko¨pte
och la¨ste
fa˚
bo¨cker.
he
bought.PST and read.PST few books
d. Han ko¨pte
bo¨cker och la¨ste
bought.PST few books and read.PST few books
fa˚
fa˚
he
bo¨cker. ((cid:2) (6c))
Let us consider the coordinate structures in (5c) and (6c), where the two verbs share a final
object. If an empty element is present in the first conjunct (as Kayne (1994) assumes), what is
the precise nature of this element? As noted, simple deletion is not tenable. And the element
cannot be pro, since sharing of unpronominalizable elements is indeed possible in this context
(as in (6c)). In Magnusson (Petzell) 2007:301, I assume that when unpronominalizable elements
are shared in coordination, they always correspond to traces in the conjuncts involved. Such an
assumption in fact makes the correct prediction that (6b) is bad (see (7a)) and (6c) is good (see
(7b)). In (7a), the antecedent fa˚ bo¨cker ‘few books’ is too deeply embedded in the initial conjunct
to c-command its trace in the second conjunct. In (7b), on the other hand, the final placement of
the shared object is derived by remnant movement of the entire coordinate structure from where
fa˚ bo¨cker has first been symmetrically extracted, providing a configuration in which all traces
are properly c-commanded.
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
/
l
i
(7) a. Han *[[ko¨pte [fa˚ bo¨cker]j] och [la¨ste *tj]].
b. Han [ko¨pte tj och la¨ste tj ]k [fa˚ bo¨cker]j tk.
Even when the shared element is pronominalizable, as in (5c), the structure in (7b) is valid; see
(8a). Pro is certainly semantically compatible with en bok ‘a book’ (i.e., they can be coreferential),
but it needs to find its reference in the preceding context, which excludes the analysis in (8b).
(8) a. Han [ko¨pte tj och la¨ste tj]k [en bok]j tk.
b. Han ko¨pte *pro och la¨ste en bok.
To sum up, all of the types of object sharing addressed in this section have been analyzed
as elliptic coordination, but with different sorts of null elements that account for the different
distribution displayed by different sorts of shared elements. To simply assume that coordination
of heads is licit, as Borsley (2005) implies it is, would not help us understand this contrast. The
head approach certainly derives both (5c) and (6c), but it offers no explanation for the difference
between (5a–b) and (6a–b).3
3.2 Coordinate Compounds
A remnant movement analysis would be applicable not only to the sharing of an object at the
right edge of the sentence (RNR) discussed above, but also to coordinate compounds, exemplified
in (9). As Arstein (2005) points out, this type of split compound coordination can have a distribu-
3 The point made here is reminiscent of the one made by Kayne (1994:62–63) in connection with the distribution
of French clitics.
/
n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
4
8
1
1
2
9
2
0
1
7
6
7
5
/
l
i
n
g
_
a
_
0
0
2
3
7
p
d
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
134
E R I K M . P E T Z E L L
tive reading (Paul is a neurochemist and Jane a biochemist) that a pure deletion analysis cannot
handle; see example (10), which would be the source of deletion but which has another meaning
(each has two degrees).
(9) Paul and Jane are neuro- and biochemists.
(10) Paul and Jane are neurochemists and biochemists. ((cid:2) (9))
An analysis of (9) in terms of head coordination is compatible with this semantic discrepancy
between (9) and (10), since structural identity is clearly not presumed. However, if (9) rep-
resents an elliptic structure created by remnant movement of the entire coordinate complex
(as shown in (11)), then (9) and (10) are structurally different as well, which explains the semantic
discrepancy.
(11) Paul and Jane are [[neuro tj] and [bio tj]]k chemistsj tk.
In other words, head coordination is not the only way to derive a distributive reading in coordinate
compounds.
4 Scandinavian Stylistic Fronting
In this section, I first give a brief overview of SF in Old Swedish and Modern Icelandic (section
4.1).4 I show that the two varieties differ in one crucial respect: in Old Swedish, but not in Modern
Icelandic, there are contexts where the target of fronting cannot be a phrase, only a head. This
difference is formalized in section 4.2. I also consider SF of elements that are contained in a
coordinate structure, concluding that the fronted element can indeed be a head, but that it is not
evident whether the head represents an entire conjunct or just part of one (section 4.3).
4.1 The Difference between Old Swedish and Modern Icelandic
In Modern Icelandic,5 finite clauses where the subject position is empty (typically embedded
clauses) may contain an element just before the finite verb; examples of such fronting, commonly
referred to as stylistic fronting (SF), are shown in (12). Either there is no explicit subject at all,
as in the relative clauses in (12a–b), or there is a clause-initial subject, such as the interrogative
pronoun in (12c). Which element is fronted when there are multiple available candidates has
attracted the interest of several scholars (starting with Maling (1980) for Icelandic, followed by
Pettersson (1988) and Falk (2007) for Old Swedish). I will not pursue that matter here.6 For
4 Traditionally, Old Swedish refers to Swedish texts from 1225 until 1526. Here, I have used only texts composed
before the middle of the 1400s. The reason for avoiding later texts is to ensure that my sample does not contain any
early instantiations of the Early Modern Swedish OV system, which overlaps with SF to a greater extent than the Old
Swedish OV system (see the discussion of OV at the end of section 4.1).
5 Much of this is true of Faroese as well (see Barnes 1987, 1992; see also Thra´insson 2012). None of the other
modern Scandinavian languages allows SF (not even archaic dialects such as O¨ vdalian, as Garbacz (2010) shows).
6 It may be noted, however, that the inventory of elements eligible for SF appears to be more versatile in Old
Swedish than in Icelandic. For instance, stylistically fronted objects are often perceived as archaic by speakers of Icelandic
(Holmberg 2000:449n6, Anna Hannesdo´ttir, pers. comm.), whereas object SF is quite commonplace in Old Swedish (see
below).
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
/
l
i
/
n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
4
8
1
1
2
9
2
0
1
7
6
7
5
/
l
i
n
g
_
a
_
0
0
2
3
7
p
d
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
H E A D C O N J U N C T S : E V I D E N C E F R O M O L D S W E D I S H
135
present purposes, it suffices to conclude that the fronted element can be a phrase (as with the PP
in (12b)), but it can also be a single-word expression that could represent a head (i.e., a head-
like element), as with the fronted verbs in (12a,c).
(12) a. Èeir
sem bu´iLj
hafa
tj ı´ u´tlo¨ndum
those that lived.PTC have.PRS
‘those who have lived abroad’
(Thra´insson 2007:371)
in out.lands.DAT
b. Èeir
sem [ı´ Danmo¨rku]j
hafa
veriL tj
in Denmark.DAT have.PRS been
those that
‘those who have been in Denmark’
(Thra´insson 2007:381)
c. Hann spurLi
hver sullaLi
asked.PST who spilled.PTC had.PST
he
‘He asked who had spilled the beer.’
(Hrafnbjargarson 2004b:91)
hefLi
ti bjo´rnum.
beer.DEF
But how can we exclude the possibility that what looks like a fronted head (i.e., [V0 buiL]
in (12a) and [V0 sullaL] in (12c)) is in fact a fronted phrase from which everything but the head
in question has moved in a previous step of the derivation (i.e., [VP buiL t] and [VP sullaL t])?
Such a remnant movement account of SF has been proposed by Franco (2009) and Ott (2009)
(apparently independently of each other). Thra´insson (2007:368n15), on the other hand, takes a
general stand against any analysis that involves remnant movement, claiming that such analyses
make it very difficult to distinguish between types of movement. Shortly, I will argue that the
all-phrasal account of SF does not hold. It seems a bit categorical, however, to disregard any
remnant movement approach solely on the grounds invoked by Thra´insson (2007); as Ban´ski
(2002) shows for Polish, different sorts of movement, although superficially targeting the same
string, could be differentiated by different prosody. Also, as Fanselow (2002) argues for German,
remnant movement may well occur but is perhaps more restricted than first appears to be the case:
Fanselow thus questions the previously well-established analysis of German participle fronting as
a case of remnant VP fronting (first suggested by Den Besten and Webelhuth (1990); see (13a)),
concluding, however, that such fronting does occur elsewhere (deriving, for instance, (13b)).
(13) a. [VP ti Gelesen]j hat
Peter [das Buch]i nicht tj .
read.PTC has.PRS Peter the book not
‘Peter has not read the book.’
(Den Besten and Webelhuth 1990:77)
b. [VP Den Hubert seinen Wagen tv]j habe
ich noch nie waschenv sehen
tj .
the Hubert his
have.PRS I
‘I have never yet seen Hubert wash his car.’
(Fanselow 2002:119)
car
yet
never wash.INF seen.PTC
Let us now return to the all-phrasal account of SF suggested by Franco (2009) and Ott
(2009). Given that unambiguous phrases such as [PP ı´ Danmo¨rku] can be the target of SF, how
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
/
l
i
/
n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
4
8
1
1
2
9
2
0
1
7
6
7
5
/
l
i
n
g
_
a
_
0
0
2
3
7
p
d
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
136
E R I K M . P E T Z E L L
can we know that fronted single-word (i.e., head-like) elements are not phrases where nothing
but the head is visible? Apparently, head-like and phrasal fronting occur in the same contexts.
The only way to exclude an all-phrasal approach would be to find a context where, for some
independent reason, it is not tenable to treat the fronted element as an (elliptic) phrase.
Contrary to most descriptions of SF in Modern Icelandic, Hrafnbjargarson (2004b) maintains
that it is indeed (at least marginally) possible to have SF even in clauses with a filled subject
position. In other words, the requirement that there can be no explicit subject if SF is to take
place would not be absolute. However, it is not the case that any explicit subject is licit. It can
only be a phonetically weak pronoun. Furthermore, marginal acceptance can be achieved only if
the fronted element is a head-like one (as in (14a)); a fronted phrase is completely ungrammatical
(see (14b)).
lesiLj
hafLi
(14) a. ?Allt sem ’ann
all
‘Everything that he had read in the book was true.’
(Hrafnbjargarson 2004b:117)
that he(weak) read.PTC had.PST
tj ı´ bo´kinni
var satt.
in book.DEF.DAT was true
b. *Allt sem ’ann
tj var satt.
that he(weak) in book.DEF.DAT had.PST read.PTC was true
[ı´ bo´kinni]j
hafLi
lesiL
all
(Hrafnbjargarson 2004b:118)
Hrafnbjargarson interprets this discrepancy as an effect of phrasal fronting and head fronting
targeting different positions. Most accounts of SF treat the complementary distribution of overt
subjects and fronted elements as an indication that subjects and fronted elements occupy the same
syntactic slot in some sense (see Thra´insson 2007:368 and the references cited therein; also see
the overview in Falk 1993:185–188 and Angantqsson 2011:181ff.). In Hrafnbjargarson’s analysis,
this slot corresponds to a specific projection into which subjects and stylistically fronted elements
are assumed to move. With no subject present (as in (12)), there can be fronting to the head
position (see (12a,c)), as well as to the specifier position of this projection (see (12b)). But if
there is a pronoun in the specifier (as in (14a)), there is certainly room for a head, whereas phrasal
fronting is predicted to be illicit. In other words, this appears to be the context we are looking
for in order to distinguish phrasal fronting from head fronting: if it works with a pronoun, it is
a head; if it does not, it is a phrase.7 Still, speakers of Icelandic disagree about whether (14a) is
marginally acceptable or in fact as ungrammatical as (14b) (see SigurLsson 2010:177n27). And
if the empirical basis is a bit shaky, it seems that the remnant movement account (Franco 2009,
Ott 2009) remains an option after all.
However, in Old Swedish, precisely the contrast in (14) appears to have been real. But before
we proceed to that, we need to consider some basic SF data. First, SF occurs in clauses with an
7 Hrafnbjargarson’s (2004b) choice of projection is quite controversial: Focus Phrase (FocP). As Thra´insson (2007:
389n23) points out, it is difficult to comprehend how pronominal subjects (let alone unstressed ones) can ever carry focus
features.
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
/
l
i
/
n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
4
8
1
1
2
9
2
0
1
7
6
7
5
/
l
i
n
g
_
a
_
0
0
2
3
7
p
d
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
H E A D C O N J U N C T S : E V I D E N C E F R O M O L D S W E D I S H
137
empty subject position ( just as in Icelandic); see (15)–(16). In (15), apparently phrasal elements
(such as the direct objects in (15a–b), the predicative in (15c), and the indirect object in (15d))
are stylistically fronted. In (16), by contrast, there is fronting of what looks like single heads
(such as the single-word objects in (16a–b), the predicative adjective in (16c), and the nonfinite
verb in (16d)); for a more detailed descriptive overview, see Delsing 2001 (cf. also Falk 1993:
179ff.)).8
(15) a. them som [hans lagh oc tro]j hafwa
tj forsma˚t
law and faith have.PRS
them that his
‘those who have despised his law and faith’
(Birg:182)
despised.PTC
b. +r
[slik+ arwuÈhis lo¨n]j skal
that such work.GEN pay shall
‘that is supposed to collect wages for such work’
(Vidh:305)
tj wp tak+
up take.INF
c. huxa
huat [almoghans
tarf ellr skadhi]j ma˚
remember.INF what people.DEF.GEN need or harm may.PRS
‘remember what may be of need or harm for the people’
(Kstyr:32)
tj wara
be.INF
that
traveling
ok h+stafoÈer ok alla
d. i huarium ko¨pstaÈ, sum [v+ghfarande mannum]j skulu tj s+li+ mat ok
sell.INF food and
in every.DAT town
o¨l
beer and horsefeed and all.ACC their necessity
‘in every town that should sell food, beer, feed for horses, and all they may need
to travelers’
(MEL:KB:XXIII)
men.DAT should
Èera Èorft
(16) a. huar sum friÈj
tj biÈia
skal
each that peace shall
‘anyone who is to ask for peace’
(O¨ gL:EB:Outline)
ask.INF
8 I disregard examples with an adverbial PP preceding the finite verb. Such elements were freer in their distribution
in Old Swedish than they are in Icelandic; see (i), where an explicit (nonpronominal) subject is followed by a PP and
the finite verb. Consequently, a preverbal PP, even if it occurs in a subjectless clause, can never be taken as an unambiguous
instance of SF (as in Icelandic; cf. (12b)), since it cannot be excluded that it is in fact structurally parallel to (i), where
SF is excluded.
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
/
l
i
/
n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
4
8
1
1
2
9
2
0
1
7
6
7
5
/
l
i
n
g
_
a
_
0
0
2
3
7
p
d
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
(i) Kan Èet ok sua varÈa,
+t nakar
Èianisto man af alder +ll+ krankdom +r ei
also so become.INF that some.NOM official
can it
‘it can also be that some official is not present due to (old) age or illness’
(MEL:KB:XII)
of age or
illness
si+luer
fo¨r
is not self.NOM for
138
E R I K M . P E T Z E L L
b. Èem sum honaj skulu tj skuÈa
a kunungx v+ghna
behold.INF at king.GEN direction
should
them that her
‘those who should behold her in the king’s stead’
(MEL:KB:XII)
c. then thra¨ttande som ho¨gxsterj war tj aff them
of them
the thirteenth that highest was
‘the thirteenth that was highest (in rank) of them’
(K-M:251)
d. jak a¨r en la¨kiare
som la¨kiaj
kan tj tha¨n skadha
man faar aff ordhom
am a physician that heal.INF can
I
‘I am a physician who can heal the injury you get from words’
(B-J:15)
the injury.ACC one gets of words.DAT
In addition, as already hinted, we find examples that are reminiscent of the Icelandic (14a);
consider the examples in (17), where head-like elements are fronted in clauses with pronominal
subjects: nonfinite verbs in (17a–b), a pronominal object in (17c), and a predicative participle in
(17d).9
(17) a. at
the waritj haffwa
tj go¨ta
konunga
that they been have.PRS Gothic kings
‘that they have been Gothic kings’
(Pkro¨n:227)
b. Sua˚som wi seaj
ma˚ghom
tj thz tra¨
som a¨
flyter i watne
we see.INF may.1PL.PRS
as
‘as we may see the wood that always floats in water’
(Kstyr:43)
the wood that always floats in water.DAT
c. Èa han honaj hafw+r swa tj f+st
has.PRS so
as he her
‘as he has thus betrothed her’
(Ha˚kansson 2011:128)
betrothed.PTC
9 Platzack (1988) assumes that examples such as (i) involve the same sort of pronominal SF as (17c). However, in
(i), the fronted element (them) has moved over a simple finite verb, not a complex of auxiliary and nonfinite main verb
as in (17c). Such simplex movement is most likely a case of OV ( possibly some sort of object shift), not SF, since the
same order occurs with explicit subjects, as shown in (ii); see also the discussion below.
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
/
l
i
/
n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
4
8
1
1
2
9
2
0
1
7
6
7
5
/
l
i
n
g
_
a
_
0
0
2
3
7
p
d
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
(i) hwat han themj swaradhe
what he them answered.PST
‘what he answered them in reply to their questions’
(Platzack 1988:227)
tj til thera spo¨rninga
to their questions
(ii) vtan gamblamestara och kennara
if.not old.masters
‘if old masters and connoisseurs do not leave it behind in writings’
(Pkro¨n:219)
and connoisseurs it
thz a¨pterlata j
scripther
leave.PRS in writings
H E A D C O N J U N C T S : E V I D E N C E F R O M O L D S W E D I S H
139
d. a¨pte ty han la¨rderj
warder
he taught.PTC.NOM becomes.PRS
since
ro¨ntom
mannom
experienced.PTC.DAT men.DAT
‘since he is taught by lettered and experienced men’
(Kstyr:41)
tj af witrom
ok
by lettered.PTC.DAT and
Still, we lack the corresponding ungrammatical example (cf. (14b)) needed to completely
rule out a phrasal approach to (17). Since we cannot, of course, test the intuition of native speakers,
we need to look for indirect evidence. Let us therefore turn to the domain of object-verb (OV)
order, which I have investigated in a previous article (Petzell 2011). There, I claim that in Old
Swedish it was highly dispreferred to move an object over several verbs; see (18a), where the
object (rættæ korn tyund ‘right grain tithes’) has moved to the left of both the nonfinite main
verb (gio¨ra ‘do.INF’) and the finite auxiliary (wil ‘wants’). Instead, simplex movement, where
the object surfaces to the left of the lower verb, was favored; see (18b). Looking more closely
at the corpus used in Petzell 2011, there are 71 examples displaying the order in (18b(cid:3)) and only
11 displaying the order in (18a(cid:3)).
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
/
l
i
(18) a. hwar sum [r+tt+ korn tyund]j wil
tj gio¨ra tj
do.INF
right grain.tithes wants.PRS
each that
‘anyone who wants to contribute the right amount of grain tithes’
(UL:25)
a(cid:3). Oj Vf tj Vnf tj
b. Èy
[siin kl+de]j saalt
hon hafLe
at
tj
because that she had.PST REFL clothes sold.PTC
‘since she had sold her clothes’
(Fleg:11)
b(cid:3). Vf Oj Vnf tj
The OVfVnf category in Petzell 2011 includes no head-like objects that precede the verbal cluster,
either in subjectless clauses (as in (16a–b)) or in clauses with a pronominal subject (see (17c));
I instead analyze these as cases of SF (Petzell 2011:166). In fact, the SF analysis may be applicable
in more cases. In Petzell 2011, I do not take into account the fact that all the remaining 11 OVfVnf
cases are subjectless. In such contexts, however, SF can target phrases, as we have seen (see
(12b), (15a–d)). Consequently, all examples of OVfVnf order in the Old Swedish sample may
represent SF of phrasal objects. Taking this generalization into account, there is no need to talk
about preference at all; the Old Swedish distribution of preverbal phrasal objects is simply the
effect of two different constructions cooccurring: OV, which occurs only within a simplex VP
but with all types of subjects (see (18b)), and SF of phrasal objects, which is unaffected by verbal
boundaries but instead restricted to clauses without an explicit subject (see (18a)).
Let us now turn to the word order in (19), where a phrasal object occurs before the entire
verbal complex, even though the clause has an overt subject (unlike the subjectless (18a)). This
/
n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
4
8
1
1
2
9
2
0
1
7
6
7
5
/
l
i
n
g
_
a
_
0
0
2
3
7
p
d
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
140
E R I K M . P E T Z E L L
example comes from Early Modern Swedish, which had a different OV system from Old Swedish.
In Early Modern Swedish, it was preferable to move the object as far to the left as possible,
thereby creating examples of this sort (Petzell 2011:174). There are 31 cases of Early Modern
OVfVnf in the corpus used in Petzell 2011 (disregarding head-like objects as before); 25 of these
have an overt subject, and 10 of them contain, in addition, an unambiguously phrasal object (as
in (19)).10 The dominant order in Old Swedish (i.e., VfOVnf ), still occurs in the Early Modern
texts but is slightly less common (28 examples) than OVfVnf.
(19) ta˚ iagh [mitt a¨hrende]j hadhe
tj uthra¨ttat
tj
as I
my errand
‘as I had done my errand’
(Gyll:16)
had.PST
executed.PTC
Now, if SF always involves movement of phrases, as Franco (2009) and Ott (2009) suggest,
examples like (19), involving phrasal fronting and a pronominal subject, are expected to exist in
a variety that allows SF in clauses with a pronominal subject, as Old Swedish apparently does
(see (17a–d)). However, examples like (19) are not found in Old Swedish. Certainly, there are
cases were more than a head-like element comes between a pronominal subject and the finite
verb, but they are (unlike (19)) finite verb–final; see (20a). Verb-final clauses were possible in
Old Swedish with any subject, as can be seen in (20b). Consequently, although verb-final clauses
may indeed look like SF clauses—namely, when there is only one nonsubject before the finite
verb (as with the phrasal object in (20a))—all verb-final contexts need to be disregarded, since
there is always the possibility that they are structurally parallel to (20b) (see also Falk 1993:170).
(20) a. +t han sua goÈan
h+st miste
that he so good.ACK horse lost.PST
‘that he lost such a good horse’
(MEL:KB:XVIII)
b. a¨pter thy alzmektogher gudh och iomfru maria mik nadher
giffwa
almighty.NOM God and Virgin Mary me mercy.PL give.PRS
insofar
‘insofar as almighty God and the Virgin Mary give me mercy’
(Pkro¨n:219)
In sum, the conclusion we must draw from the lack of Old Swedish equivalents to (19) is
that the examples in (17) do indeed involve head movement; see the analyses of (17a–d) in (21).
10 As can be seen, I make a structural distinction between OV, where O precedes a complex predicate (i.e., (19),
and (18a) as I treat it in Petzell 2011), and SF involving an object (i.e., (15a–b,d), (16a–b), and (18a) in the present
account): OV involves step-by-step movement from postverbal to interverbal to preverbal, whereas SF involves a single
movement from intermediate position to target position. The analysis of OV is hardly controversial, but the SF account
deserves a comment. I assume that the object needs to reside in the intermediate position when SF applies, reflecting the
fact that the object is a stronger candidate for SF than the nonfinite verb (cf. the Old Swedish SF hierarchy in Falk 2007:
91). On the other hand, when nonfinite verbs are fronted instead of objects (as in (16d) and (17b)), the SF hierarchy is
not necessarily violated (as in (26) below); rather, this is a case of the verb being fronted from a VO structure, a possible,
but highly marked word order in Old Swedish (Delsing 1999). However, nothing hinges on formulating the difference
between OV and SF exactly as I have done here.
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
/
l
i
/
n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
4
8
1
1
2
9
2
0
1
7
6
7
5
/
l
i
n
g
_
a
_
0
0
2
3
7
p
d
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
H E A D C O N J U N C T S : E V I D E N C E F R O M O L D S W E D I S H
141
(21) a. at
the [V0 warit]j hafwa
been
b. Sua˚som wi [V0 sea]j ma˚ghom
that they
have.PRS
[VP tj go¨ta
konunga]
Gothic kings
[VP tj thz tra¨
som . . . ]
as
we
see.INF may.1PL.PRS
the wood that
as he
c. Èa han [D0 hona]j hafw+r [VP [DP tj] swa f+st]11
has.PRS
d. a¨pte ty han [Ptc0 la¨rder]j
he
taught.PTC.NOM becomes.PRS
warder
her
so betrothed.PTC
since
ro¨ntom
mannom]
experienced.PTC.DAT men.DAT
[PtcP tj af witrom
ok
by lettered.PTC.DAT and
This conclusion, in turn, means that the remnant movement approach to SF cannot be universally
valid.12
4.2 The Structure of Stylistic Fronting
Platzack (1988) proposes that the subject pronoun in clauses with SF (as in (17a–d)) cliticizes
to the complementizer, in effect creating a clause without a subject, which is a prerequisite for
SF. This is shown with example (17a) in (22a). Platzack provides orthographic evidence to support
the claim that cliticization to C was indeed possible in Old Swedish; see (22b–c), where there is
a reduced form of the masculine pronoun han directly after the complementizer (aen in (22b))
and another reduced form attached to the finite verb (-an in (22c)); also see Alexiadou and
Fanselow 2002:239–240, where the authors adopt Platzack’s analysis to be able to explain the
loss of V-to-T movement in Mainland Scandinavian.
(22) a. [CP at-the
[TP
that-they
aen
b. at
go¨ta
warit haffwa
been have.PRS Gothic kings
therae
konunga]]
aer thiwaer at thyft
thief
that he(weak) is
‘that he is the thief of this stolen property’
(Platzack 1988:228)
of stolen.property this
c. tha bindr-an
han
then binds.PRS-he him
‘then he binds him’
(Platzack 1998:228)
But the clitic account is unable to explain the lack of phrasal fronting in such contexts on its
own. In addition, something like Hrafnbjargarson’s (2004b) analysis is therefore needed, relating
11 Following Abney (1987), I take pronouns to be DPs with only the head present, which in this case is fronted,
stranding the DP. Note, however, that 3rd person pronouns (such as hona ‘her’) may combine with determiners in some
languages (e.g., Hebrew), as shown by Ritter (1995), who therefore argues that 3rd person pronouns are instead Num
heads within the complement of D0.
12 SF in clauses with pronominal subjects has been attested elsewhere: Old and Middle Danish (Hrafnbjargarson
2004a), Middle English (Kroch and Taylor 1997), Sardinian (Egerland 2013), Old Italian (Cardinaletti 2003). It lies
beyond the scope of the present article to further investigate these varieties.
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
/
l
i
/
n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
4
8
1
1
2
9
2
0
1
7
6
7
5
/
l
i
n
g
_
a
_
0
0
2
3
7
p
d
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
142
E R I K M . P E T Z E L L
the possibility of SF in these cases to the relative lightness of the subject—that is, to the notion
that a pronoun is more on a par with a null subject, in some respects, than with a full-fledged
DP subject. Let us combine the two approaches into an account of SF that derives this type of
construction both in subjectless clauses and in clauses with pronominal subjects (as in Old Swed-
ish), but that also leaves the door open for the latter clause type to be excluded (as in Icelandic).
Suppose that the pronominal subject does cliticize to the complementizer (as Platzack (1988)
argues), but that prior to cliticization it has moved to the same phrase as stylistically fronted
elements do, located above the canonical subject position (in TP) just below the complementizer
(as Hrafnbjargarson (2004b) suggests; also see Bo’kovic´ 2001). In (23), this phrase is descriptively
labeled SP (S for stylistic fronting):13 in (23a), the pronoun moves to the specifier position of
SP, where it cliticizes to the complementizer, in effect stripping the clause of an overt subject
(see (23b)). There is now room for a fronted head (as in (23c)), but not for a phrase (see (23d)),
since the only place for a phrase (i.e., the specifier) has already been occupied by the subject
clitic (here indicated by the elimination of the maximal SP level).14
[CP at [SP [Spec thei] [S(cid:3) [TP ti haffwa warit go¨ta konunga]]]]
(23) a.
[CP at-thei [S(cid:3) [TP ti haffwa warit go¨ta konunga]]]
b.
c.
[CP at-thei [S(cid:3) waritj [TP haffwa tj go¨ta konunga]]]
d. *[CP at-thei [S(cid:3) [go¨ta konunga]j [TP ti haffwa tj warit]]]
SF in subjectless clauses would have the general structure given in (24a), where SP can
harbor either a phrase or a head, but not both (see (24b)). The reason for this restriction is
presumably the same as the reason that only cliticizable material may enter Spec,SP if a head is
subsequently to be fronted (cf. the nonclitic subject in (24c)), and also the same reason that
Spec,TP may not contain overt material (as in (24d)). What, then, unites all the illicit structures
in (24)—that is, (24b–d)? Adopting a slightly modified version of Bo’kovic´’s (2001) explanation
for the empty subject requirement, we could rule out the unwanted output on the grounds that
these examples fail to keep the stylistically fronted element adjacent to the finite elements of the
clause, that is, both the complementizer and the finite verb.15 In (24b), the double fronting prevents
such adjacency, and in (24c) and (24d), the subject cuts off the link between the fronted element
and the complementizer, (24c), and the finite verb, (24d). By contrast, in (23c), where the subject
pronoun is attached to the complementizer, and in (24a), where there is no overt subject at all,
the adjacency requirement is met.
13 This descriptive label is intended to indicate that I leave open the question as to what triggers fronting in the first
place. What is relevant here is that fronting takes place and that it is restricted in a certain fashion (however, see section
5.3, where I consider Egerland’s (2013) suggestion that SF is driven by a defocusing/backgrounding feature).
14 This is somewhat simplified. Presumably, it is only the D head that incorporates into the C complex, leaving an
empty DP structure behind in Spec,SP, as shown in (i) (cf. Kayne’s (1991) account of Romance clitics as head incorpora-
tion). However, nothing hinges on the details in the cliticization analysis being formulated exactly like this.
(i) [CP at-[D0 the] [SP [DP
15 Bo’kovic´’s (2001) original suggestion is that the fronted element—or rather, the head of the phrase to which the
fronted element moves—needs to be adjacent only to the finite verb. For more detailed discussion of the adjacency ac-
count, see section 5.3.
] . . .
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
/
l
i
/
n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
4
8
1
1
2
9
2
0
1
7
6
7
5
/
l
i
n
g
_
a
_
0
0
2
3
7
p
d
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
H E A D C O N J U N C T S : E V I D E N C E F R O M O L D S W E D I S H
143
(24) a.
[CP Comp [SP XPj/Xj [TP (cid:2) Vf tj/tj]]]
b. *[CP Comp [SP XPj Xk [TP (cid:2) Vf tj tk]]]
c. *[CP Comp [SP XPi Xj [TP ti Vf tj]]]
d. *[CP Comp [SP Xj] [TP XP Vf tj]]
(cf. (12), (15)–(16))
Why such adjacency should be required is of course an intriguing question, but I will not
dig deeper into the matter here. Still, the account is more than just a statement of the facts. First,
it felicitously predicts that there will be no SF in nonfinite clauses, as shown in (25).
(25) *Hu´n vonast
hafa
til aL skrifaLj
she hopes.PRS for to written.PTC have.INF
jo´l.
Christmas
(SigurLsson 2010:179)
tj um Èessar tilraunir
fyrir
about these experiments before
Second, it predicts that SF should not care, as it were, about overt subjects, as long as they do
not block the required adjacency. The Old Swedish example in (26a) appears to lend support to
this prediction. What we have here, according to Falk (2007:94–95), is a relative clause with a
postverbal subject, where the negation is stylistically fronted, surfacing between the finite verb
and the complementizer. In Falk’s analysis, the relative scarcity of examples of this kind is
explained by the fact that the subject is itself part of and also highest in the hierarchy of elements
that can undergo SF, which, in most cases, leads to the generation of SV order. However, the
clause in (26a) represents a violation of the SF hierarchy, Falk argues, targeting the element that
is just below the subject on the ladder, namely, negation (2007:96). The order in (26a) would
thus be parallel to other hierarchy violations, such as the one in (26b), where the direct object is
stylistically fronted over an indirect object. In the majority of cases, it is the other way around;
that is, the indirect object is above the direct object in the hierarchy, just as the subject is above
negation. Falk’s idea that the subject is the top candidate for SF could certainly be incorporated
into my analysis, where SP, as shown above, is a possible landing site for subjects. I will not go
into details here, however, since doing so would add nothing significant to the argumentation.
Neither will I try to formalize the possibility that the SF hierarchy can sometimes be violated
(but see footnote 10).
(26) a. È+n
sum eghj biÈ+r
klokkarin tj til
the.one that not begs.PRS sexton
to
‘anyone who the sexton does not ask for’
(Falk 2007:94)
b. the minn+j giw+
pr+sti
tj +n o¨re
those less
give.PRS priest.DAT
than penny
‘those who give less than a penny to the priest’
(Falk 2007:93)
Let us, instead, return to the proposed adjacency requirement on SF. This requirement is
clearly met in (26a), since the subject (albeit overt) comes after the finite verb, thus not interfering
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
/
l
i
/
n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
4
8
1
1
2
9
2
0
1
7
6
7
5
/
l
i
n
g
_
a
_
0
0
2
3
7
p
d
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
144
E R I K M . P E T Z E L L
between the verb and the fronted element. Such relative inversion (i.e., VS word order in a relative
clause) was possible in older Swedish, but is not an option in modern Scandinavian, including
Icelandic, which explains why there are no Icelandic counterparts to (26a). As I show in Petzell
2013, allowing such VS order has nothing to do with SF per se, but is linked to the fact that in
earlier stages of Swedish (and possibly other older Scandinavian varieties), the canonical subject
position was lower than it is today (see also Magnusson (Petzell) 2007 and Ha˚kansson 2008).
In sum, the crucial difference between Icelandic SF and Old Swedish SF is the application of
pronominal cliticization (as in (23b)); as we have seen, pronominal SF is, at best, only marginally
acceptable to some native speakers of Icelandic (cf. (14a)), indicating that most Icelandic speakers
have the structure in (24c) or (24d) for pronominal and nonpronominal subjects alike. Why (23b)
is not possible in Icelandic is, of course, an intriguing question. However, pursuing it lies beyond
the scope of this article.
4.3 Stylistic Fronting and Coordination Conspiring
Both Icelandic and Old Swedish SF can target elements originating in a coordinate structure, as
shown in (27). Old Swedish (as illustrated above) allows SF in subjectless clauses, as well as in
clauses with an overt pronominal subject. Coordination-internal elements may be fronted in both
these cases: thus, the first of two conjoined verbs is fronted in both (27a), where the subject is
a clause-initial relative pronoun, and (27b), where the subject position is filled by the personal
pronoun wi ‘we’ (see also the parallel example in (2)). In Icelandic, on the other hand, only
subjectless clauses are possible arenas for fronting (disregarding the highly marginal—and, for
many speakers, totally ungrammatical—example in (14a)); see (27c).16
(27) a. then
tj ok styra
ra˚dhaj ma˚
which rule.INF may
‘which may rule and govern the lands and the people’
(Kstyr:6)
b. at wi hørtj
tj och granlica
hafwa
and govern.INF lands.DAT and people.DAT
landom ok almogha
ouerl+set
the breff oc
and thoroughly over.read.PTC the letters and
that we heard.PTC have.PRS
beuisning, som Aszur Niclisson hauer
evidence
‘that we have heard and thoroughly read through the letters and evidence that Aszur
Niclisson has’
(SDHK:18212)
that Aszur Niclisson has.PRS
16 The conjoined verbs in (27) all share an object. When there is no such sharing (as in (i)), we cannot determine
whether a fronted element has been extracted from the coordinate structure (see (ii)) or whether SF is conjunct-internal
(see (iii)). All such cases are therefore disregarded here.
(i) Huar ofmikit
spar
godhz
ok go¨me
each too.much saves.PRS and hides.SBJV earth.realm.GEN goods
‘he who saves too much and would hide worldly goods’
(Kstyr:46)
jorderikes
(ii) [ofmikitj [[tj spar] ok [go¨me jorderikes godhz]]]
(iii) [ofmikitj spar tj] ok [go¨me jorderikes godhz]
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
/
l
i
/
n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
4
8
1
1
2
9
2
0
1
7
6
7
5
/
l
i
n
g
_
a
_
0
0
2
3
7
p
d
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
H E A D C O N J U N C T S : E V I D E N C E F R O M O L D S W E D I S H
145
c. Èeir
sem heyrtj
hafa
tj og se´L
allt17
those that heard.PTC have.PRS
‘those who have heard and seen everything’
and seen.PTC all
As argued in section 4.1, only examples with pronominal subjects (e.g., (27b)) involve unambigu-
ous head fronting; compare the two possible analyses of (27a) and (27c) in (28a–a(cid:3)) and (28c–c(cid:3))
respectively, with the single analysis of (27b) in (28b).
(28) a.
then [VP ra˚da]j ma˚ tj ok styra landom ok almogha
a(cid:3). then ra˚daj ma˚ tj ok styra landom ok almogha
b. at wi hørtj hafwa tj och granlica ouerl+set the breff . . .
c. Èeir sem [VP heyrt]j hafa tj og se´L allt
c(cid:3). Èeir sem heyrtj hafa tj og se´L allt
However, although the fronted element in (27b) is a head (see (28b)), it is not evident what it
leaves behind in the coordinate structure from which it originates. It could be that it does constitute
a head conjunct (see (29a)). At this stage, however, we cannot exclude the possibility that the
extracted head is only part of a phrasal conjunct in a coordinate structure involving the same sort
of sharing to the right (RNR) that was discussed in section 3.1; see (29b) (cf. (7b), (8a)). Here,
the conjuncts share an object (the breff oc beuisning som . . . ‘the letters and evidence that . . . ’)
insofar as they both contain object traces. The placement of the object after the second conjunct
follows from the subsequent movement of the entire coordinate structure to the left of the extracted
object. As a last step, the verbal head of the first conjunct is stylistically fronted.
The second conjunct in (27b) is clearly larger than a single head: the manner adverb granlica
‘thoroughly’ modifies the second verb ouerlæset ‘over.read.PTC’ but not the first one (also see
(2), where the same is true for vinlegha).18 In (29b), there would thus be VP(cid:4)VP coordination,
and in (29a) V(cid:4)VP coordination. A priori, neither structure is more likely than the other. Indeed,
considering that it is the coordinate structure itself that is under scrutiny here, we need to be
careful not to be guided by any presupposed idea that balanced coordination (VP(cid:4)VP) is somehow
more natural than unbalanced (V(cid:4)VP).19
(29) a. at wi hørtj hafwa [VP [tj och [VP granlica ouerl+set]] [the breff oc beuisning som
Aszur Niclisson hauer]]
b. at wi hørtj hafwa [[VP tj ti] och [VP granlica ouerl+set ti]]k [the breff oc beuisning
som Aszur Niclisson hauer]i tk
17 Thanks to Anna Hannesdo´ttir, University of Gothenburg, for providing me with this Icelandic example and others.
18 (2) and (27b) are the only examples of their kind in my sample. Since pronominal SF is much less common than
ordinary SF and the combination of SF and coordinate split is unusual on the whole, such a scarcity of examples is hardly
surprising. Nevertheless, it is hard to know whether the lack of examples parallel to (2) and (27b), but with single verbs
in the second conjunct, is an indication that V(cid:4)V was not an option, or whether it is merely a coincidence that both (2)
and (27b) contain a narrow adverbial modification in the second part of the coordinate structure. I will leave these questions
open. For present purposes, it is sufficient that there are initial conjuncts that could be heads.
19 Only if constituent-level symmetry between conjuncts is presupposed does the second, larger conjunct indicate
an XP(cid:4)XP coordination (cf. Kayne 1994:61n9).
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
/
l
i
/
n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
4
8
1
1
2
9
2
0
1
7
6
7
5
/
l
i
n
g
_
a
_
0
0
2
3
7
p
d
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
146
E R I K M . P E T Z E L L
On the contrary, we get a first indication that (29a) is in fact more likely than (29b) when we
consider more SF examples in a coordinate context. As we have seen, the fronted nonfinite verbs
in (27) all share an object with the second nonfinite verb. However, nothing visible is stranded
in the first conjunct. Looking more closely at the data, we see that such stranding only occurs in
Old Swedish when the extracted element belongs to both conjuncts, as in (30a–b). The same
restriction holds for Icelandic; see (31a–b).20
(30) a. the [al ho¨ghma¨le]j skulu [tj wa¨gha
who all high.cases should
‘who should weigh and try all important cases with cause and truth’
(Kstyr:71)
ok tj ro¨na medh skia¨l ok sannind]
try.INF with cause and truth
weigh.INF and
b. huadh almoghanomj ma˚ wara [tj tarf ella tj skadhi]
what people.DEF.DAT may be.INF
‘what may be of need or of harm for the people’
(Kstyr:32)
need or
harm
(31) a. Èeir sem mikiLj hafa
[borLaL
tj og drukkiL
tj ı´ Danmo¨rku]
they that much have.PRS eaten.PTC
and drunk.PTC
‘those who have eaten and drunk a lot in Denmark’
in Denmark.DAT
b. *Èeir
sem matj hafa
[borLaL
tj og drukkiL mjo´lk ı´ Danmo¨rku]
those that food have.PRS eaten.PTC
and drunk.PTC milk in Denmark.DAT
Unlike the fronted verbs in (27), which could represent the whole first conjunct, the fronted
elements in (30a–b) and (31a) are clearly only parts of conjuncts. Why stylistically fronted parts
of conjuncts need to be tied to all conjuncts involved is an intriguing question, to which I will
return in section 5.4. For now, suffice it to say that this apparent symmetry restriction on conjunct
parts speaks strongly against the analysis in (29b). Here, the verb is a conjunct part that is extracted
from the first conjunct, but the presence of data such as (30a–b) and (31a) and the absence of
data such as (31b) indicate that such extraction is in fact illicit (at least in this sort of context).
Still, to simply conclude that (29a) is the winner and that head conjuncts are thus a reality is a bit
premature. In fact, to assume that an entire conjunct is extracted, as in (29a), is quite problematic, as
I will explain further in the next section.
5 Searching for True Head Conjuncts
In the previous section, I concluded that it appears more likely that the fronted nonfinite verb in
(27b) is a fronted head conjunct (see (29a)) than that it is an extracted part of a phrasal conjunct
(see (29b)). Judging from what is known about coordinate asymmetries in general, this conclusion
is unexpected: extraction of parts of conjuncts has been shown to be a syntactic possibility,
whereas whole-conjunct extraction is not attested (section 5.1). However, fronting of part of a
20 In section 5.4, I argue that SF does not extract anything; instead, the shared element is external to the coordinate
structure when SF applies.
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
/
l
i
/
n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
4
8
1
1
2
9
2
0
1
7
6
7
5
/
l
i
n
g
_
a
_
0
0
2
3
7
p
d
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
H E A D C O N J U N C T S : E V I D E N C E F R O M O L D S W E D I S H
147
conjunct, in the cases at hand, causes crucial problems for the phonological component (section
5.2). The important task, then, is to determine the locus of SF: is it syntax or is it phonology
(section 5.3)? Arguing for the latter, I single out the head conjunct account (i.e., (29a)) as the
winner. Finally, I offer some remarks on the role of coordination in PF (section 5.4).
5.1 Other Instances of Unbalanced Coordination
Here, we will be concerned with two basic types of coordinate asymmetry in Old Swedish:
violations of the first part of the Coordinate Structure Constraint (CSC, formulated by Ross (1967);
see (32a)), and violations of the across-the-board (ATB) restriction (in the sense of Petzell 2010;21
see (32b)).
(32) a. CSC, part 1
In a coordinate structure, no conjunct may be moved.
(Ross 1967:89)
b. ATB restriction
In a coordinate structure, no element contained in a conjunct may be moved out of
that conjunct unless the same element is moved out of all conjuncts.
(Petzell 2010:183)
As stated above, (27b) involves SF of a head, which consists of either a whole conjunct or part
of a conjunct. The former situation violates the CSC; the latter, the ATB restriction. See (33),
which is a repetition of (29), accompanied by a characterization of the nature of each of the
asymmetries.
(33) a. at wi hørtj
hafwa
[VP [tj och [VP granlica
ouerl+set]]
[the breff
thoroughly over.read.PTC the letters
and
that we heard.PTC have.PRS
oc beuisning som Aszur Niclisson hauer]]
and evidence that Aszur Niclisson has.PRS
CSC violation, since the head conjunct [V0 hørt] has been extracted from the coordi-
nate structure
b. at wi hørtj hafwa [[VP tj ti] och [VP granlica ouerl+set ti]]k [the breff oc beuisning
som Aszur Niclisson hauer]i tk
ATB violation, since the head [V0 hørt] has been extracted from the VP conjunct in
the coordinate structure
In order to fully evaluate the two analyses in (33), we need to know whether the ATB restriction,
on the one hand, and the CSC, on the other, could in fact be violated in other contexts. From the
21 The ATB restriction is no more than a conflation of the second part of Ross’s original CSC, which states that
parts of conjuncts cannot move (1967:89), and the so-called ATB exception, adding that such movement is actually
possible if movement occurs out of all conjuncts (i.e., across the board), a generalization formulated by Ross later in the
same work (1967:97; see also Williams 1977, 1978). Grosu (1973) suggested that the CSC be divided in two: the Conjunct
Constraint and the Element Constraint, a terminology that has not really caught on in the linguistic community (see, how-
ever, Zhang 2010:30).
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
/
l
i
/
n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
4
8
1
1
2
9
2
0
1
7
6
7
5
/
l
i
n
g
_
a
_
0
0
2
3
7
p
d
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
148
E R I K M . P E T Z E L L
coordinate data presented in section 4.3, it seems that SF does not combine with ATB violations.
Still, it is only ATB violations that have been attested elsewhere.
Knowledge of coordination in older Scandinavian is quite fragmentary. The only extensive
investigation into the matter is my own study of ATB violations in Early Modern Swedish (Petzell
2010, which is based on my dissertation, Magnusson (Petzell) 2007), where I show that coordinate
structures could violate the ATB restriction in a variety of ways until the mid-18th century. The
oldest texts that I investigate in Petzell 2010 are from the beginning of the 17th century. The Old
Swedish data we have been discussing so far are all older than that. There is, however, no reason
to believe that the conclusions reached in Petzell 2010, on the whole, would not be valid for
earlier stages of the language as well. Preliminary results presented by Falk (2011) indicate that
ATB violations were indeed commonplace during the Old Swedish period.
As for CSC violations, no proper investigation of historical Swedish has been made. However,
given what is known from comparative studies of coordinate asymmetries, no search for such
examples is likely to succeed: true violations of the CSC seem to be universally scarce (if not
nonexistent), whereas ATB violations do occur; see Johannessen 1998:234–235 (see also Zhang
2010:23–26).
In sum, there is independent support for ATB violations, but not for CSC violations. Given
these findings, the analysis in (33b), where the fronting violates the ATB restriction, would be
preferable to that in (33a), where the CSC is violated. In other words, at this point we have no
independent support for the tentative conclusion reached in section 4.3 that conjuncts can be
heads.
5.2 RNR Demands Prosodic Prominence
Although (33b) won the last battle, the war is far from won. Is (33b) at all tenable? If it involves
the same type of object sharing that was discussed in section 3.1, namely RNR, we indeed expect
it to comply with the restrictions with which RNR usually complies. However, what is peculiar
about the RNR in (33b) is that the first verbal head moves further to the left as a case of SF. As
I stressed in section 4.3, no such unilateral extraction of other conjunct-internal elements (objects,
adjectives, etc.) ever occurs. Also, as will be evident below, the object trace is left without a
proper prosodic licenser when the verb is fronted.
In her comprehensive study of various types of coordinate ellipsis, Hartmann (2000:106)
formulates the prosodic requirements of RNR as follows: ‘‘a RNR construction always contains
a narrow focus on the contrasting elements immediately preceding the targets.’’ A typical RNR
example is given in (34a). In the movement-based analysis of RNR, the targets correspond to the
two traces created when the shared object moves out of the coordinate structure; see (34b). The
contrasting elements are the two verb forms hated and loved.
(34) a. John hated but Lisa loved the president.
b. [[ . . . hated tj] but [ . . . loved tj]]k [the president]j tk
The contrast need not entail opposition (as in (34)). RNR may involve elements that stand in a
purely additive relation to each other, as with chopped and fried in (35). This is also the case in
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
/
l
i
/
n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
4
8
1
1
2
9
2
0
1
7
6
7
5
/
l
i
n
g
_
a
_
0
0
2
3
7
p
d
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
H E A D C O N J U N C T S : E V I D E N C E F R O M O L D S W E D I S H
149
the examples discussed in sections 3.1 and 3.2, where single verbs and first parts of compounds
both share a sentence-final argument; see the two elements criticized and insulted in (36a) (cf.
(3a), (4a)) and neuro and bio in (36b) (cf. (9)).
(35) a. He chopped and she fried the potatoes.
b. [[ . . . chopped tj] and [ . . . fried tj]]k [the potatoes]j tk
(36) a. [[criticized tj] and [insulted tj]]k his bossj tk
b. [[neuro tj] and [bio tj]]k chemistsj tk
What the examples in (34)–(36) have in common is that the targets (i.e., the traces) are all preceded
by an element that is prosodically prominent and corresponds to a similar but in some respect
contrasting element in a previous or subsequent conjunct. Borrowing the terminology of te Velde
(2006:312), we could say that the gaps are licensed by a prosodic feature.
By contrast, in (33b), the first target (ti) is preceded by an element that lacks phonological
features altogether (tj), since the verb has been extracted and fronted. Object sharing should not
be able to come about in this sort of configuration, because a proper licenser of the object gap
is missing. Therefore, (33b) is not an acceptable analysis of (27b). (33a), on the other hand,
contains no object gaps that need licensing, since there is only one object that is the complement
of the conjoined verbs.
5.3 Stylistic Fronting in PF
How should (27b) be analyzed, then? As we have seen, both alternatives (i.e., (33a–b)) appear
to be impossible: (33a) violates the CSC and (33b) contains a prosodically unlicensed object gap.
How can this be? I propose that the solution lies in the apparent extrasyntactic nature of SF.
Holmberg (2000:469) stresses that this sort of fronting in Icelandic is expletive in nature. Indeed,
it is applicable in more or less the same clause types as the expletive pronoun ÈaL ‘it’ (Holmberg
2000:467, Thra´insson 2007:375ff.). In addition, it has hardly any semantic effect on the clause
(Holmberg 2000:466, Thra´insson 2007:370). Both of these characteristics suggest that the move-
ment in question takes place after Spell-Out. In other words, it appears to be a PF operation. This
approach has been implemented by SigurLsson, who maintains that SF is an effect of what he
calls the Fill the Left Edge requirement, (2010:184–185), which is a ‘‘PF or performance target’’
(2010:179), different from syntactic movement.
However, as Holmberg notes, the lack of stylistically fronted auxiliaries suggests that there
is a semantic side to the matter as well (2000:468). The fact that SF can distinguish between
auxiliary and main verbs certainly appears to be problematic for the PF account, as stressed by
Egerland (2013). Egerland maintains (drawing on general suggestions made by Erteschik-Shir
(2006, 2007)) that it is the assignment of information-structural features (which target only lexical,
not functional words) that explains why the auxiliary (a functional word) is not available for SF
(2013:72). However, as far as I can understand, Egerland’s account is fully compatible with SF
being a PF phenomenon. If SF is indeed triggered by a background feature (or rather, an unspeci-
fied information-structural feature), as Egerland suggests (2013:69), this feature would be visible
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
/
l
i
/
n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
4
8
1
1
2
9
2
0
1
7
6
7
5
/
l
i
n
g
_
a
_
0
0
2
3
7
p
d
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
150
E R I K M . P E T Z E L L
in PF. If such features were not, there would, for instance, be no proper assignment of stress to
elements bearing a focus feature.
A PF account of SF clearly offers a promising way out of our deadlock, since it differentiates
between (33a) and (33b). The prosodic requirements of RNR must be relevant in PF. Therefore
(33b), where these requirements are not met—that is, there is no contrasting focus before the
target—must be rejected. On the other hand, the extraction of the stylistically fronted head in
(33a) causes no problems: the coordinate structure is kept syntactically intact and is not split until
it reaches PF, since the split is motivated by a PF process (i.e., SF). As a consequence, we have
no reason to exclude (33a) on the grounds that it constitutes a CSC violation. The beating about
the bush regarding the analysis of (27b) has thus come to an end: it must be analyzed as in (33a),
where the first conjunct of the coordinate structure is a head.22
Now, let us address the empty subject requirement of SF in light of the proposed PF analysis.
In section 4.2, I analyzed this requirement as a demand for adjacency between the fronted element
and the complementizer/finite verb, largely following Bo’kovic´ (2001). To account for the fact
that pronouns do not block the licensing of SF in Old Swedish, I assumed that cliticization precedes
the evaluation of adjacency. If SF is a PF phenomenon, PF would be the locus of all the different
steps involved: subject cliticization, the actual fronting, and adjacency evaluation. In other words,
PF needs to involve movement, and it also needs to be quite complex in the sense that a certain
derivational order can apply. Such a conclusion is fully in line with SigurLsson’s (2010) proposal
that PF is larger than traditionally assumed. It is also compatible with recent approaches to PF
within Distributed Morphology; see, especially, Kandybowicz’s (2008:11–12) proposal of a lay-
ered PF, where processes such as morphological fusion (e.g., cliticization) precede phonological
mapping operations (under which the adjacency evaluation would fall). Furthermore, SF is not
unique in taking place after Spell-Out: according to Agbayani and Golston (2010), PF movement
occurred in Classical Greek, creating split constituents that narrow syntax cannot derive.
Still, it is not evident how the adjacency requirement is to be formulated more precisely. In
Bo’kovic´’s version, the head of the phrase to which stylistically fronted elements move is an
abstract verbal affix, ‘‘which must merge under PF adjacency with a verb (more precisely a finite
verb given that stylistic fronting cannot occur in infinitives)’’ (2001:250). If a subject comes
between this affix and the finite verb, there can be no adjacency. In my modified account, I
propose a requirement for double adjacency in order to account for blocking effects both between
the fronted element and the complementizer (see (24c)) and between the fronted element and the
finite verb (see (24d)). As a consequence, the affix account cannot be adopted; instead, the demand
for adjacency must be directed, as it were, toward the fronted element itself.
Finally, the adjacency account, in both Bo’kovic´’s version and mine, presupposes that finite-
ness can be identified within PF. Exactly how this comes about is not entirely clear. Are finite
22 The split of this coordinate structure is simply derivationally later than coordinate splits of the type shown in (i),
from present-day Swedish, where the first of two conjoined subjects is fronted.
(i) *Kallei har
[ti och Lisa] a¨tit
gro¨t.
Kalle has.PRS
and Lisa eaten.PTC porridge
This sort of DP-fronting would constitute syntactic movement in SigurLsson’s (2010) sense, which means that it would
create a fatal violation of the CSC (since it occurs in syntax).
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
/
l
i
/
n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
4
8
1
1
2
9
2
0
1
7
6
7
5
/
l
i
n
g
_
a
_
0
0
2
3
7
p
d
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
H E A D C O N J U N C T S : E V I D E N C E F R O M O L D S W E D I S H
151
features indeed visible in this more syntactic SigurLssonian PF? Or is there something else about
the elements at hand that enables PF to single them out? In order to resolve the issue, a more
thorough discussion of the nature of PF is clearly needed. I have started such a discussion here,
but it will have to be continued elsewhere.
5.4 Head Conjuncts and the Status of the Coordinate Structure in PF
What implications do the findings presented here have for a theory of coordination? In a way,
the progression of this article bears a resemblance to losing your keys and then discovering that
you had them all along. Although the conjuncts addressed in section 3 could be treated as phrases,
the SF story shows that head conjuncts are a syntactic reality after all, in effect ruling out the
all-phrasal approach to conjuncts (in, e.g., Kayne 1994 and Johannessen 1998). However, there
are necessarily restrictions regarding what heads are eligible for coordination. Otherwise, we
would expect all sorts of coordinated clitics to occur, for instance, which is contrary to fact (as
the French example (37) shows).
(37) *Jean te
et me voit souvent.
Jean you and me sees often
(Kayne 1994:59)
Minimalist approaches to coordination that acknowledge the existence of head conjuncts naturally
have to account for this. Zhang (2010) incorporates Chomsky’s (1994) bare phrase structure
approach into her theory of coordination, making constituent level (head or phrase) irrelevant;
instead, all conjuncts are required to be nonprojecting (Zhang 2010:37ff.). Another proposal is
presented by te Velde (2006); in his view, it is conjunctions that are nonprojecting (and in that
way similar to adverbs, in the spirit of Travis 1988), simply conjoining individually derived
structures (heads as well as phrases) into coordinate complexes.23
We need not go into the details of these two analyses. Both could easily, it seems, incorporate
the crucial Old Swedish coordination involving a raised head conjunct and a second, slightly
larger conjunct (as in (2) and (27b)). Neither te Velde’s nor Zhang’s analysis entails the demand
for constituent-level symmetry. In other words, the V(cid:4)VP structures in (33a) can be derived
straightforwardly.24 However, both analyses appear to lack some restrictive component that can
prevent the system from deriving illicit head coordination (as in (37)), without excluding the head
conjuncts that we do want the system to derive.
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
/
l
i
/
n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
4
8
1
1
2
9
2
0
1
7
6
7
5
/
l
i
n
g
_
a
_
0
0
2
3
7
p
d
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
23 If projection is dispensed with altogether, as suggested by Chomsky (2013), te Velde’s (2006) distinction of
defective projecting, as well as Zhang’s (2010) nonprojecting projecting, would have to be translated into something like
nonlabeling labeling. Their points—namely, that conjunctions are different from other heads (te Velde) and that coordinated
heads are different from independent heads (Zhang)—would remain the same, as far as I can understand.
24 For instance, in te Velde’s (2006) model, the V(cid:4)VP structure would look something like (i).
(i) [V(cid:3) hørt
[V(cid:3) och [VP granlica
heard.PTC
and
ouerl+set]]]
thoroughly over.read.PTC
Here, the conjunction does not head a phrase of its own. Instead, two separate chunks of structure (individually derived)
are conjoined by och ‘and’, which, being a nonprojecting head, is assigned the same label as the first conjunct. This
complex but in itself incomplete structure is later merged with the internal argument the breff . . . ‘the letters . . . ’ (the
common object) and the external argument wi ‘we’ (the common subject), forming a complete transitive VP.
152
E R I K M . P E T Z E L L
Te Velde actually addresses the very example shown in (37). Although derived by the syntac-
tic component, it can still felicitously be blocked because clitics lack the prosodic prominence
that, in te Velde’s view, all coordinate conjuncts are required to have (2006:116n28). At first,
this strategy appears to exclude our SF cases as well: in the syntactic domain, they are complete
(see (38a)), but in PF, the coordination is split (see (38b)), leaving the first conjunct as prosodically
problematic as the clitic conjuncts in (37); compare (38c).
(38) a. In syntax: [V & VP]
b. In PF: Vv [tv & VP]
c. In PF: [*tv & VP]
However, it is not evident what status coordination has in PF. One might, for instance, inquire
whether the notion of conjunct is really relevant (as te Velde implies it is). Above, I have argued
that coordinate structures must not be split in syntax (CSC violations), but that PF does not care,
as it were, about such asymmetries. The reason that PF does not care may be that the coordinate
structure is irrelevant in PF, or at least that it is not active in the way it is in syntax. In that case,
we can exclude the ungrammatical clitics in (37) without taking the coordinate structure per se
into account. A pronominal clitic of the sort occurring in (37) needs a verbal host, and there
simply are not enough hosts in (37). (38c) is, by contrast, unproblematic: the first conjunct would
contain no phonological features (after SF has applied) and would therefore, naturally, be irrelevant
in PF.
Furthermore, if the coordinate structure is deactivated in PF, this may explain the lack of
SF of conjunct-internal material. As observed in section 4.3, only elements that are shared by all
conjuncts may be stylistically fronted (see (39a), which is a modified version of (30a)). This
symmetry restriction is clearly unrelated to the SF. Similar sharing occurs in clauses without any
fronting, as can be seen in (39b).
(39) a. the [al ho¨ghma¨le]j skulu [[wa¨gha
ok ro¨na]
tj medh skia¨l ok sannind]
who all high.cases should weigh.INF and try.INF with cause and truth
‘who should weigh and try all important cases with cause and truth’
(Kstyr:71)
b. ath wi hafuom
oc andhuardhat]
honum wart goozs]
leased.PTC and transmitted.PTC he.DAT our estate
[[vplathit
that we have.1PL.PRS
‘that we have leased and transmitted our estate to him’
(SDHK:16673)
In other words, al ho¨ghma¨le ‘all high.cases’ in (39a) is not extracted from the coordinate structure,
but is external to it ( just like the objects in (39b)) when SF applies. Consequently, the only part
of a coordinate structure that we need to assume is accessible for fronting is the entire first
conjunct. As we have seen, such conjunct fronting occurs both in clauses with pronominal subjects
(as in (2), (27b)) and in subjectless clauses (as in (27a,c)). The fronting of a shared complement
(as in (39a)), however, occurs only in the latter context. Obviously, a complement is always a
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
/
l
i
/
n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
4
8
1
1
2
9
2
0
1
7
6
7
5
/
l
i
n
g
_
a
_
0
0
2
3
7
p
d
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
H E A D C O N J U N C T S : E V I D E N C E F R O M O L D S W E D I S H
153
phrase, never a head (as shown in (40a), from present-day Swedish). And, as we know, only
heads may be fronted in Old Swedish clauses involving pronominal subjects; thus, the lack of
complement sharing in such contexts is expected. I illustrate this limitation in (40b) using the
same present-day Swedish forms as in (40a) (owing to the obvious lack of negative data).
(40) a. att han har
[[varit
och fo¨rblivit]
[AP glad]/*[A0 glad]]
that he has.PRS been.PTC and remained.PTC
happy
b. att han [A0 glad]j har
*[[varit
och fo¨rblivit]
tj ]
that he
happy has.PRS
been.PTC and remained.PTC
On the other hand, fronting of a head within a shared complement is predicted to be possible in
clauses with a pronominal subject; given that the complement is outside the coordinate structure,
its content should ( just like parts of complements in the simple clauses in (21)) be accessible for
SF. As shown in (41), this prediction is borne out. This example features a pronominal subject
(iak ‘I’) and two coordinated passive verbs that share a PP complement: the complement of P is
relativized, but P itself is stylistically fronted.
thz Opi som iak [P0 aff]j [[afladhis
(41) Swa var a¨nkte hionalagh ho¨uiskare a¨n
so was no marriage nobler
ok fo¨ddis]
and born.PST.PASS
‘Thus, no marriage was nobler than the one that I was conceived and born from’
(Birg2:128)
[PP tj ti]]
than it
that I
of
conceive.PST.PASS
To sum up, SF may target an initial conjunct but not part of it, indicating that the more
embedded elements of the coordinate structure are inaccessible for movement at this stage of the
derivation. However, it is clearly too drastic to conclude that PF has no access whatsoever to
parts of conjuncts. As I argue in Petzell 2010, there appears to be purely phonological matching
between conjuncts in PF, which suggests that the internal structure of conjuncts is indeed visible
in some sense. Also, a prerequisite for prosodic licensing of coordinate gaps in RNR structures
of the sort discussed in sections 3.1 and 5.2 is that the conjunct where the gap resides can be
reached and reviewed in PF.
6 Summary
The aim of this article has been to determine whether all coordinate conjuncts are phrases or
whether heads can be conjuncts. I have argued that for alleged head conjuncts posited in the
literature, a phrasal account is equally as good as (in the case of coordinate compounds) or even
preferable to (in the case of object sharing) a head conjunct analysis.
To get to the bottom of the question at hand, I have considered Scandinavian stylistic fronting.
Such fronting may target phrases, which makes it difficult to fully rule out the possibility that
even when a head-like element occurs, it is in fact a phrase containing nothing but a head.
However, in Old Swedish (unlike Modern Icelandic, the variety usually invoked in the literature
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
/
l
i
/
n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
4
8
1
1
2
9
2
0
1
7
6
7
5
/
l
i
n
g
_
a
_
0
0
2
3
7
p
d
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
154
E R I K M . P E T Z E L L
on SF), there is a context where SF cannot target phrases, namely, clauses with a pronominal
subject; here, only head-like elements can be fronted. Since phrases never occur, we are forced
to conclude that the head-like elements are indeed heads and not remnant phrases.
Having established that the clauses with pronominal subjects are unambiguous head contexts,
I have considered a particular subtype of such cases where the first of two coordinated verbs is
fronted. While it is certainly clear that head fronting is going on, it is not clear what the extraction
of the verbal head in fact leaves behind: is the fronted verb really a full nonphrasal conjunct, or
is it merely part of an elliptic phrasal conjunct? Both possibilities are problematic. I have shown
that the latter alternative ( phrasal conjunct) is incompatible with the prosodic requirements of
coordinate ellipsis; also, it predicts that SF should occur with conjunct-internal elements in general
(not only with verbs), which is not the case. The former alternative (head conjunct) instead
involves a severe type of coordinate asymmetry, known to be banned from syntax in general.
Still, this asymmetry turns out to be irrelevant, since the extraction creating it appears to be
extrasyntactic, occurring in PF. Here, however, the violation of prosodic requirements is, naturally,
crucial. In sum, the head conjunct analysis is favored.
Data Sources (Ordered Chronologically)
Vidh
Fleg
O¨ gL
UL
[‘‘Va¨stgo¨talagens lagmanna-, kunga-, och biskopsla¨ngd’’]. Collin, Hans Samuel, and Carl Johan
Schlyter, eds. 1827. Samling af Sweriges gamla lagar. Vol. 1, Westgo¨talagen. Stockholm: Z.
Haeggstro¨m. (written about 1240)
Stephens, George, ed. 1847. Svenska medeltidens kloster- och helgonabok: En samling af de a¨ldste
pa˚ svenska skrifne legender och a¨fventyr. 2, Ett forn-svenskt legendarium inneha˚llande medeltids
kloster-sagor om helgon, pa˚fvar och kejsare ifra˚n det I:sta till det XIII:de a˚rhundradet (Bd 1).
Stockholm: Norstedts. (written 1276–1308)
Collin, Hans Samuel, and Carl Johan Schlyter, eds. 1830. Corpus iuris sueo-gotorum antiqui:
Samling af Sweriges gamla lagar, [ . . . ]. Vol. 2, Codex iuris Ostrogotici (cid:5) O¨ stgo¨ta-lagen. Stock-
holm: Norstedts. (written in the 1290s)
Henning, Samuel, ed. 1967. Upplandslagen: Enligt Cod. Holm. B 199 och 1607 a˚rs utga˚va. (Sam-
lingar utgivna av Svenska fornskriftsa¨llskapet 70:1.) Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. (written in
1297)
Kstyr Moberg, Lennart, ed. 1964. En nyttigh bok om konnunga styrilse och ho¨fdinga [facsimile of edition
MEL
Birg
K-M
from 1634 by Johannes Bureus]. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. (written about 1330)
Collin, Hans Samuel, and Carl Johan Schlyter, eds. 1862. Corpus iuris sueo-gotorum antiqui:
Samling af Sweriges gamla lagar, [ . . . ] Vol. 10, Codex iuris communis Sueciæ Magnæanus (cid:5)
Konung Magnus Erikssons landslag. Lund: Berlingska. (written about 1350)
Klemming, Gustaf, ed. 1857–1858. Heliga Birgittas Uppenbarelser. (Samlingar utgivna av Svenska
fornskriftsa¨llskapet 14:1, bok 1–3.) Stockholm: Norstedts. (written after 1380)
Klemming, Gustaf, ed. 1887–1889. Prosadikter fra˚n Medeltiden: Aff Karlamagnus konung. (Sam-
lingar utgivna av Svenska fornskriftsa¨llskapet 28.) Stockholm: Norstedts. (written at the end of
the 14th century)
SDHK Charters from 1406 (16663, 16673) and 1414 (18212) in Svenskt Diplomatariums huvudkartotek
Birg2
(http://sok.riksarkivet.se/SDHK).
Klemming, Gustaf, ed. 1860. Heliga Birgittas Uppenbarelser. (Samlingar utgivna av Svenska
fornskriftsa¨llskapet 14:2, bok 4–5.) Stockholm: Norstedts. (written at the beginning of the 15th
century)
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
/
l
i
/
n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
4
8
1
1
2
9
2
0
1
7
6
7
5
/
l
i
n
g
_
a
_
0
0
2
3
7
p
d
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
H E A D C O N J U N C T S : E V I D E N C E F R O M O L D S W E D I S H
155
B-J
Klemming, Gustaf, ed. 1887–1889. Prosadikter fra˚n Medeltiden: Barlaam och Josafat. (Samlingar
utgivna av Svenska fornskriftsa¨llskapet 28.) Stockholm: Norstedts. (written about 1440)
Pkro¨n Klemming, Gustaf, ed. 1881. Sveriges kro¨nika (vanligen kallad den prosaiska). (Sma˚stycken pa˚
Gyll
forn-svenska 1.) Stockholm: Svenska fornskriftsa¨llskapet. (written in the 1450s)
Hausen, Reinhold, ed. 1882. Diarium Gyllenianum eller P. M. Gyllenii dagbok 1622–1667. Helsing-
fors. (author born in 1622)
References
Abney, Steven. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge,
MA.
Agbayani, Brian, and Chris Golston. 2010. Phonological movement in Classical Greek. Language 86:
133–167.
Alexiadou, Artemis, and Gisbert Fanselow. 2002. On the correlation between morphology and syntax: The
case of V-to-I. In Studies in comparative Germanic syntax: Proceedings from the 15th Workshop
on Comparative Germanic Syntax, ed. by C. Jan-Wouter Zwart and Werner Abraham, 219–242.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Angantqsson, A´ sgrı´mur. 2011. The syntax of embedded clauses in Icelandic and related languages. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Iceland.
Arstein, Ron. 2005. Coordination of parts of words. Lingua 115:359–393.
Ban´ski, Piotr. 2002. Prosodic diagnostics for remnant AP movement in Polish. In Dimensions of movement:
From features to remnants, ed. by Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou, Sjef Barbiers, and
Hans-Martin Ga¨rtner, 31–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Barnes, Michael. 1987. Some remarks on subordinate clause word order in Faroese. Scripta Islandica 38:
3–85.
Barnes, Michael. 1992. Faroese syntax – achievements, goals and problems. In The Nordic languages and
modern linguistics 7, ed. by Jonna Louis-Jensen and Jo´han Hendrik W. Poulsen, 17–27. To´rshavn:
Fro´Lskaparsetur Føroya.
Besten, Hans den, and Gert Webelhuth. 1990. Stranding. In Scrambling and barriers, ed. by Gu¨nther
Grewendorf and Wolfgang Sternefeld, 77–92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Borsley, Robert. 2005. Against ConjP. Lingua 115:461–482.
Bo’kovic´, äeljko. 2001. On the nature of the syntax-phonology interface: Cliticization and related phenom-
ena. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Cardinaletti, Anna. 2003. Stylistic fronting in Italian. In Grammatik i fokus/Grammar in focus: Festschrift
for Christer Platzack 18 November 2003, ed. by Lars-Olof Delsing, Cecilia Falk, Gunlo¨g Josefsson,
and Halldo´r A´ rmann SigurLsson, 2:47–55. Lund: Lund University, Department of Scandinavian
Languages.
Chomsky, Noam. 1994. Bare phrase structure. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 5. Cambridge, MA:
MIT, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130:33–49.
Delsing, Lars-Olof. 1999. Fra˚n OV-ordfo¨ljd till VO-ordfo¨ljd: En spra˚kfo¨ra¨ndring med fo¨rhinder. Arkiv fo¨r
Nordisk Filologi 114:151–232.
Delsing, Lars-Olof. 2001. Stylistic fronting: Evidence from Old Scandinavian. Working Papers in Scandina-
vian Syntax 68:147–171.
Egerland, Verner. 2013. Fronting, background, focus: A comparative study of Sardinian and Icelandic.
Lingua 136:63–76.
Engdahl, Elisabet. 2001. Versatile parasitic gaps. In Parasitic gaps, ed. by Peter W. Culicover and Paul M.
Postal, 127–145. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
/
l
i
/
n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
4
8
1
1
2
9
2
0
1
7
6
7
5
/
l
i
n
g
_
a
_
0
0
2
3
7
p
d
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
156
E R I K M . P E T Z E L L
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 2006. On the architecture of topic and focus. In The architecture of focus, ed. by
Valeria Mo´lnar and Susanna Winkler, 33–57. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 2007. Information structure: The syntax-discourse interface. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Falk, Cecilia. 1993. Non-referential subjects in the history of Swedish. Doctoral dissertation, Lund Univer-
sity.
Falk, Cecilia. 2007. Kilkonstruktion och ordfo¨ljd i a¨ldre fornsvenska. In Studier i svensk spra˚khistoria 9,
ed. by Lars Wollin, Anna Saarukka, and Ulla Stroh-Wollin, 90–97. A˚ bo: A˚ bo Akademi.
Falk, Cecilia. 2011. Koordination med finit verb i andrakonjunkten: Fra˚n runsvenska till 1737. Paper pre-
sented at the Ho¨gre seminariet, Department of Scandinavian Languages, Stockholm University, 23
November 2011.
Fanselow, Gisbert. 2002. Against remnant VP-movement. In Dimensions of movement: From features
to remnants, ed. by Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou, Sjef Barbiers, and Hans-Martin
Ga¨rtner, 91–125. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Franco, Irene. 2009. Verbs, subjects and stylistic fronting: A comparative analysis of the interaction of CP
properties with verb movement and subject positions in Icelandic and Old Italian. Doctoral disserta-
tion, University of Siena.
Garbacz, Piotr. 2010. Word order in O¨ vdalian: A study in variation and change. Doctoral dissertation, Lund
University.
Grosu, Alexander. 1973. On the non-unitary nature of the Coordinate Structure Constraint. Linguistic Inquiry
4:88–92.
Ha˚kansson, David. 2008. Syntaktisk variation och fo¨ra¨ndring: En studie av subjektslo¨sa satser i fornsvenska.
Doctoral dissertation, Lund University.
Ha˚kansson, David. 2011. Bisatsledfo¨ljden i a¨ldra svenska – variation eller fo¨ra¨ndring? Arkiv fo¨r Nordisk
Filologi 126:93–140.
Hartmann, Katharina. 2000. Right node raising and gapping: Interface conditions on prosodic deletion.
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Holmberg, Anders. 2000. Scandinavian stylistic fronting: How any category can become an expletive.
Linguistic Inquiry 31:445–483.
Hrafnbjargarson, Gunnar Hrafn. 2004a. Oblique subjects and stylistic fronting in the history of Scandinavian
and English: The role of IP-spec. Doctoral dissertation, Aarhus University.
Hrafnbjargarson, Gunnar Hrafn. 2004b. Stylistic fronting. Studia Linguistica 58:88–134.
Johannessen, Janne Bondi. 1998. Coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kandybowicz, Jason. 2008. The grammar of repetition: Nupe grammar at the syntax-phonology interface.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kayne, Richard. 1991. Romance clitics, verb movement, and PRO. Linguistic Inquiry 22:647–686.
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kroch, Anthony, and Ann Taylor. 1997. Verb movement in Old and Middle English: Dialect variation and
language contact. In Parameters of morphosyntactic change, ed. by Ans van Kemenade and Nigel
Vincent, 297–325. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Magnusson (Petzell), Erik. 2007. Gra¨nso¨verskridande koordination: Syntaktisk fo¨ra¨ndring i a¨ldre svenska.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Gothenburg.
Maling, Joan. 1980. Inversion in embedded clauses in Modern Icelandic. I´slenskt Ma´l og Almenn Ma´lfræLi
2:175–193.
Ott, Dennis. 2009. Stylistic fronting as remnant movement. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 83:
141–178.
Pettersson, Gertrud. 1988. Bisatsledfo¨ljden i svenskan eller Varifra˚n kommer BIFF-regeln? Arkiv fo¨r Nordisk
Filologi 103:157–180.
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
/
l
i
/
n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
4
8
1
1
2
9
2
0
1
7
6
7
5
/
l
i
n
g
_
a
_
0
0
2
3
7
p
d
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
H E A D C O N J U N C T S : E V I D E N C E F R O M O L D S W E D I S H
157
Petzell, Erik M. 2010. Coordination and word order in the history of Swedish. Transactions of the Philological
Society 108:178–212.
Petzell, Erik M. 2011. OV-ordfo¨ljd i svenskans historia. Arkiv fo¨r Nordisk Filologi 126:141–192.
Petzell, Erik M. 2013. Relative inversion and non-verb-initial imperatives in Early Modern Swedish. Nordic
Journal of Linguistics 36:27–55.
Platzack, Christer. 1988. The emergence of a word order difference in Scandinavian subordinate clauses.
McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 6:215–238.
Postal, Paul M. 1974. On raising: One rule of English grammar and its theoretical implications. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Ritter, Elizabeth. 1995. On the syntactic category of pronouns and agreement. Natural Language and Linguis-
tic Theory 13:405–443.
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
SigurLsson, Halldo´r A´ rmann. 2010. On EPP effects. Studia Linguistica 64:159–189.
te Velde, John. 2006. Deriving coordinate symmetries: A phase-based approach integrating Select, Merge,
Copy and Match. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Thra´insson, Ho¨skuldur. 2007. The syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thra´insson, Ho¨skuldur, ed. 2012. Faroese: An overview and reference grammar. 2nd ed. To´rshavn: Fro´L-
skapur.
Travis, Lisa. 1988. The syntax of adverbs. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 6:280–310.
Williams, Edwin. 1977. Across-the-board application of rules. Linguistic Inquiry 8:419–423.
Williams, Edwin. 1978. Across-the-board rule application. Linguistic Inquiry 9:31–43.
Zhang, Niina. 2010. Coordination in syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Institute for Language and Folklore
The Department for Dialectology, Onomastics, and Folklore Research in Gothenburg
Vallgatan 22
SE-411 16 Gothenburg
Sweden
erik.petzell@isof.se
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
/
l
i
/
n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
4
8
1
1
2
9
2
0
1
7
6
7
5
/
l
i
n
g
_
a
_
0
0
2
3
7
p
d
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
/
l
i
/
n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
4
8
1
1
2
9
2
0
1
7
6
7
5
/
l
i
n
g
_
a
_
0
0
2
3
7
p
d
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Download pdf