Search

It is well known that German and Dutch have productive diminutive morphology. What is much less discussed is the fact that several other Germanic languages do not have such productive morphology, notably the Scandinavian languages. Instead, these languages form compounds to express a diminutive meaning. This paper addresses the puzzle of why the Scandinavian languages do not have productive diminutive morphology. The paper argues that the culprit is the particular definite suffix that the Scandinavian languages have. This is a postnominal definite suffix that occupies a low position in the nominal functional spine. It is argued that the presence of this suffixed article accounts for the lack of productive synthetic diminutive formation in these languages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper discusses the morpho-syntax of phrasal proper names like Deutsche Bahn 'German Railway' and Norske Skog 'Norwegian Forest' in German and Norwegian. As regards determiner elements, there are three types of phrasal proper names in German: some proper names do not have a definite article, some do, and yet others exhibit a possessive. Depending on the syntactic context, the first two types pattern the same as regards the presence or absence of the article but contrast with the third, where the possessive is always present. It is proposed that proper names in German vary in their structure as regards the presence of the DP-level: unlike articles, possessives have a referential marker, and a DP is obligatorily projected with the latter element. Norwegian is different. While proper names in Norwegian also vary in the presence or absence of determiners, there is no flexibility—determiners are always present or always absent, independent of the syntactic context. It is proposed that unlike in German, the DP-level in Norwegian is always present. As argued by Roehrs (Glossa J Gen Linguist, 5(1):1–38, 2020, https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1267), phrasal proper names involve a regular syntactic derivation. Given that elements of regular DPs are sensitive to definiteness in Norwegian, it is proposed that Norwegian proper names involve an obligatory definiteness feature. As this feature surfaces in the DP-level, the latter must be present in that language in all instances. Besides this cross-linguistic difference, we document that phrasal PN may show features of recursivity evidenced most clearly in Norwegian. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study provides a synthesis of corpus-based and experimental investigations of word-order preferences in German infinitival complementation. We carried out a systematic analysis of present-day German corpora to establish frequency distributions of different word-order options: extraposition, intraposition, and 'third construction'. We then examined, firstly, whether and to what extent corpus frequencies and processing economy constraints can predict the acceptability of these three word-order variants, and whether subject raising and subject control verbs form clearly distinguishable subclasses of infinitive-embedding verbs in terms of their word-order behaviour. Secondly, our study looks into the issue of coherence by comparing acceptability ratings for monoclausal coherent and biclausal incoherent construals of intraposed infinitives, and by examining whether a biclausal incoherent analysis gives rise to local and/or global processing difficulty. Taken together, our results revealed that (i) whilst the extraposition pattern consistently wins out over all other word-order variants for control verbs, neither frequency nor processing-based approaches to word-order variation can account for the acceptability of low-frequency variants, (ii) there is considerable verb-specific variation regarding word-order preferences both between and within the two sets of raising and control verbs under investigation, and (iii) although monoclausal coherent intraposition is rated above biclausal incoherent intraposition, the latter is not any more difficult to process than the former. Our findings indicate that frequency of occurrence and processing-related constraints interact with idiosyncratic lexical properties of individual verbs in determining German speakers' structural preferences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]