Cover not available
Article published In:
Into adpositions: New formal perspectives on the structure of the PP and its variation
Edited by Víctor Acedo-Matellán, Theresa Biberauer, Jaume Mateu and Anna Pineda
[Linguistic Variation 21:1] 2021
► pp. 11–45

Prepositions with CP and their implications for extended projections

| University of Tromsø
In some limited cases, English allows a particular preposition to combine with a certain kind of subordinate clause, as exemplified by in that in “I take the proposal seriously, in that I loathe it”. In contrast, Norwegian systematically allows prepositions to combine with subordinate clauses (as in Det resulterte i at vi vant, literally “It resulted in that we won”). I argue that the English case should be handled as the subcategorization for a certain complement class by a particular lexical entry, while the Norwegian case indicates that the extended projection of clauses can continue up to the preposition. This highlights an important difference between lexical selection and extended projection, revealing a hitherto underappreciated source of parametric variation, and sheds light on several properties of extended projections as well as of prepositions. Specifically, the extended projections of N and V may “converge” at P, challenging the notion of extended projection as being confined to a single lexical category.
Keywords: Preposition, extended projection, selection, functional hierarchy, Norwegian
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Three kinds of phrases
  • 2.Data
    • 2.1English in that
    • 2.2English P-CP more generally
    • 2.3Norwegian P-CP
    • 2.4Infinitive CPs with P
      • 2.4.1Infinitive CPs with P in Norwegian
      • 2.4.2Infinitive CPs with P in English
    • 2.5Particles
    • 2.6Interrogative CP
    • 2.7Norwegian differs syntactically from English
  • 3.The analysis: Mixed extended projections
    • 3.1S-projections
    • 3.2Hierarchy of domains
    • 3.3Edge functions
    • 3.4HoPs as directed graphs
    • 3.5Mixed extended projections
    • 3.6Mixed extended projections as graphs
    • 3.7EPGs as finite state networks
    • 3.8Acquisition of EPG
    • 3.9The extended projection of P
    • 3.10Revisiting the HoD
  • 4.Alternatives
    • 4.1Are Norwegian CPs DPs?
    • 4.2Is there a null D and/or N in the P-CP construction?
    • 4.3Summary
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 8 September 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.00032.sve
References (63)
References
Abney, Steven. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Adger, David. 2013. A syntax of substance. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2001. Functional structure in nominals: Nominalization and ergativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. The aspectual properties of nominalization structures. In Alexandra Galani, Glyn Hicks & George Tsoulas (eds.), Morphology and its interfaces, 47–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Gianina Iordăchioaia & Florian Schäfer. 2011. Scaling the variation in Romance and Germanic nominalizations. In Antonia Petronella Sleeman & Harry Perridon (eds.), The noun phrase in Romance and Germanic: Structure, variation, and change, 25–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baltin, Mark R. 1989. Heads and projections. In Mark R. Baltin & Anthony S. Kroch (eds.), Alternative conceptions of phrase structure, 1–16. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric. 2010. Why edges are needed. In Anna Maria Di Sciullo & Virginia Hill (eds.), Edges, heads, and projections: Interface properties, 11–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 1984. Parametric syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. The normal course of events (structuring sense, vol. ii). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borsley, Robert D. & Jaklin Kornfilt. 2000. Mixed extended projections. In Robert D. Borsley (ed.), The nature and function of syntactic categories, 101–131. San Diego, Ca.: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borthen, Kaia. 2003. Norwegian bare singulars: NTNU, Trondheim dissertation.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1972. Theory of complementation in English syntax. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Brody, Michael. 2000. Mirror Theory: Syntactic representation in Perfect Syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 31(1). 29–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. ’s-Gravenhage: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2007. Approaching UG from below. In Uli Sauerland & Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds.), Interfaces + recursion = language? Chomsky’s minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics, 1–18. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2008. On phases. In Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero & Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 133–166. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 1301. 33–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 2010. On the functional structure of locative and directional PPs. In Guglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi (eds.), Mapping spatial PPs: Cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 61, 74–126. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elbourne, Paul. 2008. The argument from binding. Philosophical Perspectives 22(1). 89–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Emonds, Joseph. 1985. A unified theory of syntactic categories (Studies in Generative Grammar 19). Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faarlund, Jan Terje, Svein Lie & Kjell Ivar Vannebo. 1997. Norsk referansegrammatikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. In Emmon Bach & Robert T. Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Gawron, Jean Mark. 1986. Situations and prepositions. Linguistics and Philosophy 9(3). 327–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1991. Extended projections. Ms. Brandeis University.Google Scholar
. 2005. Extended projection. In Jane Grimshaw (ed.), Words and structure, 1–73. Stanford, Ca.: CSLI. Revised version of 1991 ms.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken & Samuel Jay Keyser. 2002. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 39). Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haumann, Dagmar. 2011. The syntax of subordination. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1973. The base rules for prepositional phrases. In Stephen Anderson & Paul Kiparsky (eds.), A festschrift for Morris Halle, 345–356. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
. 1977. X̄ syntax: A study of phrase structure (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 2). Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda. 2000. Prepositions, postpositions, circumpositions, and particles. In Hilda Koopman (ed.), The syntax of specifiers and heads, 204–260. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin & John Whitman. 2011. Afterword: Nominalizations in syntactic theory. Lingua 121(7). 1297–1313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koster, Jan. 1978. Why subject sentences don’t exist. In Samuel Jay Keyser (ed.), Recent transformational studies in European languages, 53–64. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lohndal, Terje. 2014a. Sentential subjects in English and Norwegian. Syntaxe et Semantique 15(1). 81–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014b. Sentential subjects: Topics or real subjects? In Robert E. Santana-LaBarge (ed.), Proceedings of the 31st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 315–324. Somerville, Ma.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1982. Paths and categories. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Pietroski, Paul M. 2005. Events and semantic architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian & Peter Svenonius. 2002. The lexical syntax and lexical semantics of the verb-particle construction. In Line Mikkelsen & Christopher Potts (eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL 21, 387–400. Somerville, Ma.: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
. 2014. Deriving the functional hierarchy. Language Sciences 46(B). 152–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rauh, Gisa. 1993. On the grammar of lexical and non-lexical prepositions in English. In Cornelia Zelinsky-Wibbelt (ed.), The semantics of prepositions: From mental processing to natural language processing, 99–150. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1990. Functional prepositions. In H. Pinkster & I. Genee (eds.), Unity in diversity, 229–241. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. Categorial feature magnetism: The endocentricity and distribution of projections. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 21. 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk & Riny Huybregts. 2002. Location and locality. In Marc van Oostendorp & Elena Anagnostopoulou (eds.), Progress in grammar: Articles at the 20th anniversary of the Comparison of Grammatical Models group in Tilburg, 1–23. Amsterdam: Meertens In-stituut. [URL]
Rijkhoff, J. 2002. The noun phrase. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar: Handbook in generative syntax, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sheehan, Michelle & Wolfram Hinzen. 2011. Moving towards the edge. Linguistic Analysis 37(3–4). 405–458.Google Scholar
Stowell, Tim. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
. 1996. The phrase structure of tense. In Johan Rooryck & Lauri Zaring (eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon, 277–291. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 1996. Review of den Dikken 1995, Particles . Language 741. 816–820. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Limits on P: filling in holes vs. falling in holes. Nordlyd, Tromsø Working Papers on Language and Linguistics . Proceedings of the 19th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics 31(2). 431–445.Google Scholar
. 2007. Adpositions, particles, and the arguments they introduce. In Eric Reuland, Tanmoy Bhattacharya & Giorgos Spathas (eds.), Argument structure, 71–110. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Projections of P. In Anna Asbury, Jakub Dotlacil, Berit Gehrke & Rick Nouwen (eds.), Syntax and semantics of spatial p, 63–84. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Spatial prepositions in English. In Guglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi (eds.), Mapping spatial PPs: Cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 61, 127–160. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logo
. 2016a. Complex predicates as complementation structures. In Léa Nash & Pollet Samvelian (eds.), Approaches to complex predicates, 212–247. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016b. Spans and words. In Heidi Harley & Daniel Siddiqi (eds.), Morphological metatheory, 199–220. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, Peter & Knut Tarald Taraldsen. 2007. The construct state in Norwegian prepositional phrases. Ms. CASTL, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1978. Figure and ground in complex sentences. In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of human language, vol. 41, 625–649. Stanford, Ca.: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Terzi, Arhonto. 2010. Locative prepositions and Place . In Guglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi (eds.), Mapping spatial PPs: Cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 61, 196–224. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Complex spatial expressions. In Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Wiley Blackwell companion to syntax, 1–25. Wiley 2nd edn.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina. 2014. The universal structure of categories: Towards a formal typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Ahern, Aoife K., José Amenós-Pons & Pedro Guijarro-Fuentes
2024. Pragmatics, Grammar and Meaning in SLA, DOI logo
Bi, Luosha
2023. Resolving Syntactic and Semantic Ambiguities from a Minimalist Approach: A Case Study of Mandarin PPs. In Proceedings of the World Conference on Intelligent and 3-D Technologies (WCI3DT 2022) [Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, 323], ► pp. 197 ff. DOI logo
Nitschke, Remo
2022. On the extended projection of German adjectives. In A0 – The Lexical Status of Adjectives [Language Faculty and Beyond, 17], ► pp. 219 ff. DOI logo
Putnam, Michael T. & Åshild Søfteland
2022. Mismatches at the syntax-semantics interface: The case of non-finite complementation in American Norwegian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 45:3 ► pp. 310 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.